# dual-citizen | FBAR | foreign retirement account



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Greetings --

Here is a summary of my situation. I provide some fair detail, since I suspect my situation isn't entirely unique, and either someone in said similar situation will have some advice, or this thread might help someone in future.

Here goes...

1\ I am a dual US-Canadian citizen (Canadian by birth). One of my parents was a US citizen, and we thought it might be helpful down the road to have dual-citizenship (education, employment), which it has been. But now...

2\ I was an employee of a Canadian university from 1992-1997. During that time, the University made non-match contributions to an RRSP account, which is managed by a large insurance company in Canada. There has been no activity in the account (beyond market-based changes) since 1998, when I moved to the US. The present value is >$10K US. 

3\ prior to 1992, I had no employment history in the US, and no US tax returns. As such, since I was a Canadian, being paid by a Canadian university, there was no discussion of even filing a US return while I was living in Canada - despite my having dual Canada-US citizenship. 

4\ In ~1998, I moved to the US. Because I moved half-way during the year, I ended up filing taxes with both Revenue Canada, and the IRS at the end of 1998. To complete the US taxes, I made use of H&R Block Premium Tax services. At the time, we discussed 'foreign income', which was entered on the form, but there was no additional form required for the RRSP account, nor was there any discussion that I needed to file anything with respect to that account. 

5\ Upon moving to Ithaca in 1999, I continued to use H&R Block services to file taxes. In the years for which I have printed returns produced by H&R Block, there are no entries (that I can find) relating to foreign accounts. The returns reflect discussions had with H&R tax consultants some 17-20 years ago, so I don't recall explicitly discussing the RRSP account, but it would seem likely it would have come up. But, there is nothing on the returns (that I can find) alerting the IRS to that account, indicating that it probably didn't. 

6\ Up until a few days ago (literally), I'd never even heard about FBAR, and when I did, and looked it up, it initially seemed like it didn't apply, because my immediate interpretation was that it applied to foreign bank accounts, or foreign accounts being used for investing funds made while working in the US (say, a business person who uses a foreign account for some of their earned assets). Since my RRSP was based on institutional contributions to the Canadian equivalent of an IRA, and since IRAs aren't taxable, and since the funds were earned while I was living as a Canadian in Canada, I assumed that FBAR didn't apply (once I knew what FBAR was). In fact, that would have been my implicit assumption since ~1198, since the tax professionals (when I used them) never asked, and even if I saw something on the return forms I've completed on my own since then, I just skipped that since I assumed it didn't apply.

However, apparently, this is incorrect. At this point, I'm out of my depth. Not filing an FBAR (for a considerable number of years, although I know now penalties accrue for only last 5-6 years) was absolutely 'not willful' -- and since I'm now aware of FBAR, and am making attempts to figure out how to make necessary disclosures, I'm clearly not trying to 'hide anything' (now, or at any point). And, I've never received a communication from the IRS concerning the RRSP account, so I wasn't alerted to it potentially being an issue.

Over the past day or so I've read a bit about 'Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures' for FBAR non-compliance, but beyond that, its clear I'll need some professional help (or better knowledge of canteen privilege's in the prison I'll be sent to ;-)

Any thoughts/advice? Thanks in advance...


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

The FBAR has been around since the 1970s or so.. but no one really ever has known about it and FinCen didn't really care about non-reporting because they are primarily interested in Money Laundering not ordinary accounts.. Its really only gotten back into attention with the transfer of administration to the IRS and then subsequently with the introduction of FATCA which also introduced foreign account reporting as part of ones tax returns.

For what its worth, so long as the IRS is not knocking on your door, the delinquent FBAR submission process is to simply file them late. It is probably worth doing this particularly if you are still in the US.

File for each year that the sum of all your Canadian accounts is greater than $10k USD for the last 6 years.

That should include the RRSP and any other financial account held in Canada (or anywhere outside the US for that matter)

As to entering streamlined... I cannot tell if you are in the US (point 5 suggests you might still be) or are back in Canada (give you mention offshore rather than onshore procedures).

Before doing anything, take a deep breath, and then dig out your copies of the last three or four tax returns, and then use them and the sums you will have assembled for the FBAR to answer the following questions (or rough guesses if you have an idea of approximate balances)

1a. Was Schedule B filed?
1b If it was, was Part III completed correctly?
2. Was the balance of all of your foreign financial accounts over the filing threshold for Form 8938 ?

Assuming you are filing single or separately, the threshold on question 2 would be $50k USD at the end of a tax year or $75K at any time in the tax year if you are in the US, and 200k / 300k USD if living in outside the US.

It the answers to those questions are No, No, Yes, or Yes, No, Yes, then it is may be worth entering the offshore streamlined program. If you are in the US its worth noting that RRSPs are excluded from the 5% mandatory penalties .. regardless I would proceed with caution before entering the domestic streamlined program given the mandatory penalties which do not exist in the offshore program.

If the answers to those questions are Yes, No, No or No, No, No, you may want to simply consider filing amended returns to attach a schedule B with Part III completed correctly.

If the answer is Yes, Yes, No then apart from the FBARs you are likely in order and just need to get the FBARs in order.


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Greetings, and good morning (for me).

Thanks very much. Thanks for taking the time to respond, and in such detail. Above and beyond...

I've embedded followup answers/queries/additional information in your quoted reply, below:



Moulard said:


> The FBAR has been around since the 1970s or so.. but no one really ever has known about it and FinCen didn't really care about non-reporting because they are primarily interested in Money Laundering not ordinary accounts.. Its really only gotten back into attention with the transfer of administration to the IRS and then subsequently with the introduction of FATCA which also introduced foreign account reporting as part of ones tax returns.
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the bit of history.
> ...


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

If the RRSP is your only foreign financial account (no Canadian bank accounts etc lying around, then) the domestic offshore program is probably worth while in light of the fact that RRSP and RRIF are not included in the 5% penalty base.


Domestic Offshore program is described here...






U S Taxpayers Residing in the United States | Internal Revenue Service


U.S. Taxpayers Residing in the United States




www.irs.gov





This FAQ includes entries on how RRSP are treated 






Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for U S Taxpayers Residing in the United States Frequently Asked Questions and Answers | Internal Revenue Service


Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for U.S. Taxpayers Residing in the United States Frequently Asked Questions and Answers




www.irs.gov





Read the FAQ Carefully so you do not accidentally include the RRSP in such a way that would result in the 5% penalty being applied.


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Thanks - again! Yes -- RRSP is the only account I still have in Canada. The FAQ you linked to is somewhat confusing, but thats on me. And, that is part of the problem. Depending on how I read it, I could conclude that if the only account I hold outside the US is a Canadian RRSP, and if there has been no income from it at all (i.e., I haven't started disbursements from the account), then there is no penalty base at all, and once I submit last several years of US returns, and the appropriate number of unfiled FBARs, there really should be no penalty at all. But, clearly, that is the most optimistic view, and 'IRS' and 'optimism' are generally not entities I'd put into the same sentence.


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

Of course, the other option is to simply file an amended return, outside of the streamlined process. Or even simply to ignore it and file correctly on your next return. OK.. lets face it you could also just continue as you have ... and do nothing.

Ordinarily I would only recommend someone enter a streamline program if they had large amounts of unreported income that they wanted to absolve themselves of, or there was some specific reason they needed to get up to date .. but I am more familiar with the foreign rather than domestic streamlined process

The advantage of streamlined, is that it clears the slate and given no penalty it seems to make sense to do so. By the sound of it, it will be pretty simple... 1040-X attaching Schedule B and Form 8938 (for any year where you exceed the reporting threshold).. and then bundling it all up with Form 14654. You will want to ensure that you complete it correctly or you risk self assessing yourself for the 5% penalty that would not otherwise be due.

But then again, I am just some random person on the internet, so you should treat everything I say with caution and do your own research before submitting anything, or if the sums involved are large, pay for professional advice.


----------



## Harry Moles (11 mo ago)

For as long as you're not drawing money from the RRSP, the IRS won't know about it, as RRSP accounts are not reportable under FATCA. (The IRS also doesn't routinely look at FATCA data, but that's another issue.) So you have time to figure this out, there's no urgent risk of being caught.


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Many thanks for the follow-ups. Some quick replies:

1\ I'm looking at this forum as a place to collate opinions/suggestions/information, which I assume to likely vary from well-informed to (well) less-well-informed. This is not a judgement, but is a reality hedge. [Having said that, everything posted so far seems spot on, and has been corroborated - as much as I can tell - by my own reading].

2\ it does seem that RRSP's are 'different'. Full stop. They're not reported under FATCA (which I think I knew, but Harry Moles confirms in his post). And they seem to have different 'penalties' (or, lack of same) since its been suggested that RRSP (and RRIF) are not included in the 5% penalty base if I go the 'domestic offshore streamlined' route. 

3\ I had thought about simply checking the right boxes on my future US tax returns, and proceed from there ignoring prior 'failure to reports' -- to see what happens. But that places a fair amount of faith on the small risk of reporting being a trigger for the IRS to look more deeply, and perhaps coming to the conclusion I was willfully hiding the RRSP account (which absolutely wasn't the case). I'm absolutely trying to avoid a 'willful' designation in any sense. 

I have a couple of consults with tax accountants and tax lawyers pending, so we'll see what they say. I'll report back here.


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

Just be aware that tax accountants and tax lawyers earn their living based on how much business they generate. They also have a vested interest in being overly conservative in their approach, given that if the tax returns they sign off on (as "paid preparer") frequently have questionable items on them then they can be struck off the list of official "paid tax preparers" which kind of ruins their reputations and business.

Also, if you file under the Streamlined Compliance program (domestic or overseas) and don't owe any taxes, you will probably never get any sort of official notification either of the receipt and processing of your filings, nor of being considered officially "off the hook" for your back taxes. (The IRS is seriously backlogged and overworked and simply has no time or personnel to handle small "courtesies" like this.)

Your "risk" is mainly related to your income level during the periods for which you are filing and whatever evaluation is made of how much you "might" have avoided in back taxes. If your filings are pretty clean and you clearly don't owe anything, then they'll be filed away and you'll never hear from the IRS again on the matter. It's up to you what you want to do, but if you're expecting some sort of official exoneration, don't hold your breath.


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Many thanks. I've already discovered the breathtaking amounts of $$$ that some tax lawyers/accounts roll out as the 'price you pay for the security of the paperwork being filed correctly. I'll cross that bridge if need be when the time comes.

At this point, there are no 'back taxes' per se. Its simply one single, dormant RRSP account that sits there, doing nothing but rising/falling value with the market. There is no 'income' from said account until if/when I decide to start the disbursements. 

Your comments about the IRS not replying to me were helpful, and consistent with my general experience with the IRS (which have been pretty minor -- I've almost never used anything other than 1040 forms -- no deductions other than mortgage interest, no business expenses. I think at most it takes me 10-15 minutes to complete my return. Ironically, this whole thread was started because I didn't take the 30 seconds to deal with a 'foreign account', if I even saw it at all.)


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

Given the simplicity of what you need to do, I would not suggest you pay someone to fill in the forms for you. Lets face it you are going to have to do the bulk of the leg work anyways (unless you plan to provide a shoebox full of statements) and if you don't yu are going to be paying for their intern to key in the data you provide. If you have been completing your own tax returns then this really should be simple for you if you have records... and even if you don't it would be up to you to guess the max values for FBAR and FATCA reporting (or chose the "Max value unknown" option.. 

I guess what I was suggesting, depending on your level of confidence it might be worth going to a professional and saying.. this is the situation, this is what I know I need to do... this is how I think I need to complete Form 14654 ...have I missed anything? But from the way you are responding, you seem to be having a level headed approach to it all... and should be well within your means.


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Simplicity, perhaps, mechanically. The minimum component involves collating (i) US returns past 3 years, and (ii) account statements past 6. I have electronic version of...almost everything for past 15-20 years, so this 'step' took all of 60 seconds. Then, fill out the delinquent FBARS for those 6 years (maybe 5 minutes), and go from there. 

What is less 'simple', at least to me, is what else to submit -- which largely depends on a legal assessment of what my circumstance, and how to submit it. And what sorts of formal declarations I need to make - about (most specifically) my not filing being 'not willful', which seems to be the lynch pin on which everything else hangs. If the IRS fully believes you, perhaps total amnesty, verbal wrist slap, and a pointed reminder to file FBAR moving forward. If the IRS only believe you to a 'moderate degree', then potential penalties, calculated relative to the value of the account (which could be 5% or 10%, depending on how RRSP's really are handled; I've seen both numbers posted in various place. And of course 'official IRS statements' are completely obfuscated - I suspect intentionally. Much of what I read is a logical knot - like 'have you stopped kicking your dog?'. Some of the IRS docs read like that (at least to my untrained eyes) -- 'Are you taking distributions from an unreported account?'. How can you answer that?). 

So, decisions concerning 'paying' someone actually is two-tiered: the accountants to collate and check the forms (maybe I can do myself, and save money), and the tax lawyers, who can answer questions about the legal bits (obviously) and who obviously aren't cheap. So, how much do you spend for 'peace of mind'? My demonstration of 'not willful' largely rests on the decision makers believing my statement that I simply didn't know I had to file an FBAR for an RRSP. The question of threshold for the 'ignorance of the law is or is not an excuse' is partly what I suspect you're supposed to learn in law school. 

So, I've decided to front up a bit of $$$ to have consults with 3-4 'tax lawyers' over next several days. I'll then model average their comments, and proceed from there -- which might involve the bigger $$$ of retaining one of them to hand-hold the production and submission of the final product. Its one thing for me to tell the IRS "I was simply ignorant of the rule'. Its another for a tax lawyer to be part of that conversation. 

Thanks for the various comments. One of the amusing bits of mental gymnastics involves trying to properly elocute to an account that (i) wasn't submitted on FBAR, but (ii) isn't reported to the IRS under FATCA, because its a registered retirement account. So, in effect, I'm mulling over self-reporting about an account that the IRS would know nothing about unless I self-report (or, start disbursements, which moves it from 'RRSP' to 'reportable foreign account'). 

Stay tuned....


----------



## Harry Moles (11 mo ago)

If you planned on returning to Canada when you retire, you know what the easy answer would be.


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

If it were just up to me, yes, that would be the plan, and yes, I know the answer. ;-)

But, short of kidnapping the family (US citizens all, although I got my kid dual-citizenship -- mostly as what I'll call a 'political hedge' - he can move north more easily if the US goes south, if you catch my meaning), I'm stuck in the US (no offense intended to those for whom being in the US would be a major step up. Simply doesn't apply to me. I'd rather be in Canada, but...).

Someone who knows a bit about my circumstance emailed me recently and said you could always donate your RRSP to a worth CDN charity, tax free, with no reporting - at which point one level of the problem solved (maybe -- would the IRS be cranky for failed FBAR reporting for an account they don't know about suddenly disappearing altogether?). I suppose that would work, but while I like to think I'm a charitable soul, I'm not quite ready to 'give it all away', so to speak. 😊


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

After much reading, including recent legal 'decisions', it seems as if it comes down to this. If I self-report the RRSP account to the IRS, by going through the mechanics of streamlined submissions, then the IRS is able to make a judgement about whether or not my failure to report was 'not willful', or not. Even if they find it 'not willful', there seems to be two tiers of 'decision': one being amnesty, with no penalty, the there being a penalty based a percentage of the account value each year I didn't file FBAR forms (up to 6 years, which would apply in my case). Depending on who you interpret things, the penalty for an RRSP could be 5%, lower than the 'standard' 10% penalty. Either way, 5% of the account value x 6 = more money than I have. Full stop. 

So, filing for compliance is one thing. The truly mission critical decision is -- what are the bounds on the IRS making a determination of 'not willfull' or not. Presumably, I have sufficient evidence that I wasn't 'willfull'. I simply didn't understand that I need to file an FBAR for an RRSP (as opposed to, say, another acccount). However, while normally the burdne of proof for things like this rests with the government, my sense from several recently legal decisions is that the burden is creeping more towards me (the 'offender') to prove in some fashion it wasn't 'willful'. And, that is where I think it gets tricky. Consider the following scenario:

IRS: did you see the question on Schedule B about foreign accounts?
me: Yes, but I thought it didn't apply, so skipped it.
IRS: did you make a good faith effort to determine if that question applied to the RRSP account?
me: No - I worked from the assumption that it didn't, based largely on the fact that at no point did any of the 'tax specialists' indicate I needed to do anything, and because I simply assumed that a retirement account was 'different'.
IRS: no good faith effort - ignorance under the law doesn't work. The IRS can support a willful FBAR penalty with a lower standard of evidence than is needed to prove a civil fraud penalty. Meaning, from the Sturman decision in the 6th court, “evidence of acts to conceal income and financial information, _*combined with the defendant’s failure to pursue knowledge of further reporting requirements as suggested on Schedule B*_, provide a sufficient basis to establish willfulness on the part of the defendant.” 

And that is the big issue -- how does someone (on either side of the table) decide if someone (like me) "pursued knowledge of further requirements as suggested on Schedule B"? I could very easily conclude (if I was the IRS) that I didn't. A legal issue

Hence, my hesitancy to simply roll stuff together and submit it under the 'Streamlined Offshore' program, since I keep having this nightmare vision of someone at the IRS basically making a determination that I was, in fact at least partially willful (which I wasn't, but did I fully explore whether an RRSP needs to be reported?), and fining the heck out of me. Heck = 5% x value x 6. Thats were it gets scary, and complicated. Back when I first started submitting US returns, I worked from my previous 1040 filings, in conjunction with H&R block folks. The notion of 'Googling it' wasn't really a 'thing' back then, so (i) since H&R Block didn't bring the issue up, -- which I interpreted as implicit support for my belief that the RRSP was different, then (ii) I kept skipping the question if I saw it (and for some of my returns, I didn't since I didn't need to and thus didn't file a schedule B). Could I have found information suggesting I should have filed FBAR if I'd looked? Sure -- but I hadn't even heard the acronym FBAR until ~2 weeks ago. So how could I Google something I didn't even know existed?

And so it goes...


----------



## Harry Moles (11 mo ago)

johnny_canuck said:


> submit it under the 'Streamlined Offshore' program


You're a US resident, so you can't use the offshore flavour of streamlined. I assume you know this, and it was a typo.

Also, in situations like this, I find the following helpful: Beaver Overthinking Dam


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Harry Moles said:


> You're a US resident, so you can't use the offshore flavour of streamlined. I assume you know this, and it was a typo.


Good catch - thanks. I noted the correction in my post...



Harry Moles said:


> Also, in situations like this, I find the following helpful: Beaver Overthinking Dam


Heh -- wisdom from the Onion. Possible to overthink? Sure. Can you afford the potential penalty of not thinking enough about the dam (say, major 'financial flood' in the form of penalties)? Using the dam/flood analogy, drowinng under the fiscal flood of possible penalties. Formally, what is your risk profile -- risk prone, or averse? Is 'clearing things up' the risk of 'clearing things up' effectively by paying a possible penalty. 

I'm chatting with some tax lawyers this week -- I suspect if you've gotten this far in this thread, you know the questions I'll be asking. Basically, do I have sufficient basis to propose 'not willful', and have that proposal 'accepted'.


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

Harry Moles said:


> You're a US resident, so you can't use the offshore flavour of streamlined.


There is only an offshore flavour, it just comes in two different cones - Domestic and Foreign.

So as stupid as it sounds, there is a "Domestic Offshore" and "Foreign Offshore" program

As pointed out early in the thread.. as the OP is in the US it is the "Domestic Offshore" program


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

I stand corrected. I have since found the following summarizes the various options, programs and the like far better than any other single resource I've previously found. I find it makes clear distinctions among programs, forms, and everything else: FBAR Penalty Appeals and Compliance Programs | Brotman Law


----------



## Harry Moles (11 mo ago)

Moulard said:


> There is only an offshore flavour, it just comes in two different cones - Domestic and Foreign.
> 
> So as stupid as it sounds, there is a "Domestic Offshore" and "Foreign Offshore" program
> 
> As pointed out early in the thread.. as the OP is in the US it is the "Domestic Offshore" program


Right, duh, sorry. Ignore my comment. Domestic or foreign US taxpayer with offshore assets. So intuitive...


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Unfortunately, the distinction is more important than awkward acronyms suggest: SFOP can conclude with 'no penalty'. SDOP (i.e., domestic, living in the US), apparently no such luck. It seems as if my most likely option is SDOP (given I currently reside in the US), and I'm likely looking at a penalty. The slight uncertainty (I believe) is what that penalty looks like for an RRSP, which is some weird way is....different. 

And now everyone knows what I'll be asking the tax lawyer types.


----------



## Harry Moles (11 mo ago)

johnny_canuck said:


> And now everyone knows what I'll be asking the tax lawyer types.


The tax lawyer types will recommend whichever course of action maximizes their billing. Just so you're prepared...


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

No doubt... ;-)


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

One update -- I learned I was mistaken (there is a theme here) about how SDOP penalties are assessed. I had assumed it 5% of 6 times aggregate account value (or, in effect 5% of max value each year). This is incorrect -- good thing, because thats a hunk of change. 

In fact, you look at the 6 years, find the year with highest value on 31 December, and then use 5% of that. Still not great, but...a significant improvement over ~6 times that. [Source: 6-Step Streamlined SDOP 5% Penalty Guide: Golding & Golding]


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

And, from the IRS website:

_Under § 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2014-55, you are treated as having made the election. See Rev. Proc. 2014-55, § 7. Your Canadian retirement plan will not be included in the 5-percent penalty base. In the narrative statement of facts on Form 14654, please state that you are an “eligible individual” under Rev. Proc. 2014-55.

You may need to report your Canadian retirement plan on FBARs or Forms 8938. Please refer to the instructions for these forms for more information._


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

Maybe even better -- the following (from Streamlined Filing Compliance Procedures for U S Taxpayers Residing in the United States Frequently Asked Questions and Answers | Internal Revenue Service) suggests I might not have to do much more than FBAR and certification submission, since the account (my only account) is an RRSP. Item Q9...

*Q9. Same facts as FAQ 8 except my Canadian retirement plan is the only foreign financial asset I own or control, and, consequently, I had no unreported gross income from any foreign financial assets. Do I need to report my Canadian retirement plan under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures?*
_No. You do not need to report your interest in the Canadian retirement plan under the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures. Please file any required delinquent FBARs pursuant to the Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures and any required delinquent Forms 8938 with a reasonable cause statement pursuant to the Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures._


----------



## johnny_canuck (5 mo ago)

So, after now having had (translation: paid for) a number of consults with 'international tax lawyers', some consensus points have emerged, and one key point of 'confusion'. All confirmed SDOP doesn't apply, since its an RRSP. Thats good and bad (bad in that the potential penalty for non-compliance is not as great as it might be for the alternative - described in the following). First, file delinquent FBAR forms - relatively straightforward (took me about 30 minutes to pull the appropriate maximum account values, and the end-of-year conversions US dollars). Second, and the key point of confusion: a couple of lawyers said because there is only one account, and specifically because said account is an RRSP, _and_ because I haven't taken disbursement, I don't have to file 1040-X and 8938. In fact, one intimated that doing so might in fact be a very bad idea (I assume a way of stating that the less the IRS knows, the better...). On the other side of the fence, other lawyers intimated that I absolutely must back-file 1040-X and 8938 forms, with a just cause statement. And that just filing delinquent FBARs and _not_ anything else would be a very bad idea. Option 2 seems more conservative, but its simply a different separation of risks. Option 1, risk the IRS coming after me for _not_ filing 1040-X and 8938 forms, being very cranky, and hitting me with the maximum penalty (or, in fact, nothing at all happening, because this is the right thing to do), versus filing 1040-X and 8938, and hope that the IRS accepts just cause and imposes no penalty (or, in fact, the IRS goes all in and fines me 10K per year, which is not even in the realm of feasible). My not filing the FBAR was me simply not knowing about it. The not reporting of the account on the return was simply because I didn't think it applied -- I believe the premise behind option (i), above. 

So, its like having two sets of doctors: one saying you need one type of surgery, and one saying you need something else. What I find really surprising here is that these two perspectives are diametrically opposite, and yet they are, in theory, reading from the same legal playbook (one lawyer did point out that the situation is nuanced, and somewhat more vague, with Canada (generally), and RRSP accounts, specifically). I'll admit at this point to being really confused. Part of the stress is that like surgery, once you pull the trigger, there is no going back.


----------

