A Canadian family with a New York daughter, and a Florida property held in a U.S. trust.

The situation, on arrival

• A U.S.-resident daughter the architecture had never been written for
  Married, a New York domiciliary for nine years, two U.S.-citizen grandchildren by birth. Treated by every Canadian advisor as a Canadian beneficiary. Her U.S. federal income, gift, and estate tax exposure on Canadian-source distributions had never been mapped; her PFIC and foreign-trust reporting obligations under IRC sections 1291 and 6048 had never been raised with her at all.
• A Florida property held in a U.S. trust drafted in 2014
  A capable Florida estate plan structured against U.S. federal estate tax under the unified credit, but never reviewed against the family’s Canadian residency. The Canadian principal-grantor’s retained powers were creating section 2036 inclusion risk in the U.S. estate and, simultaneously, deemed Canadian residency for the trust under subsection 94(3) of the Income Tax Act — a structure operating against itself in both systems.
• A latent U.S. estate-tax exposure on assets the family had never thought of as “U.S. assets”
  U.S. shares held directly in a personal Canadian brokerage account, a U.S. bank account left open since the 1990s, and the equity in the Florida property — each one U.S.-situs property under IRC section 2104, each one reachable by U.S. federal estate tax above the Canada–U.S. treaty’s prorated unified credit on the principal’s death. None of it was protected by the credit shelter the family had assumed applied.
• Two countries of counsel, never in the same conversation
  Capable Canadian counsel handling the Canadian estate under the Income Tax Act and Ontario law. Capable Florida counsel handling the U.S. trust under the Internal Revenue Code and Florida Trust Code. The Canada–U.S. Tax Convention — particularly Articles XXIX-B and XXX-A on estate and gift tax relief — was no one’s file; the gap between the two regimes was where the family’s exposure had quietly accumulated.

What the architectural review surfaced

None of the items above were errors at the time of implementation. Each was the right answer to the question the advisor on that side of the border had been asked. The architectural problem was not in either jurisdiction; it was in the absence of anyone holding the file across both at once.

The Senatus bench convened Canadian counsel, U.S. counsel, the family’s Canadian CPA, and the family’s U.S. tax advisor in a single working group — reading from one cross-border memorandum, working from one family map. The Canadian partner’s drafting moved faster because the U.S. tax position was already documented. The U.S. partner’s revisions to the Florida trust were sharper because the Canadian residency and attribution rules were finally on the same page in front of him. Each professional did the work they were already capable of, with the context they had not previously had access to.

How the Senatus bench enhanced the work on both sides of the border

• For the Florida counsel: the U.S. trust restructured to satisfy IRC and the Canada–U.S. treaty at once
  Florida counsel kept the drafting, the partner relationship, and the file. What changed was the input. The Senatus bench documented the section 2036 retained-powers analysis, the section 679 foreign-grantor-trust mechanics, and the Article XXIX-B treaty positions that let the trust satisfy the IRS as a U.S. domestic trust under the IRC section 7701(a)(30)(E) court and control tests, while simultaneously avoiding deemed Canadian residency under subsection 94(3) of the Income Tax Act. The trust was redrafted by Florida counsel, on his letterhead, under the Florida Trust Code — with structural certainty he could now stand behind in both tax systems.
• For the U.S. tax advisor: a section 645 election and a coordinated 1040-NR / 706 / 706-NA filing strategy
  The U.S. tax advisor kept his client. The Senatus bench provided the cross-border filing architecture: pre-mortem section 645 election analysis to align trust and estate reporting, foreign tax credit positioning under IRC section 901 against Canadian tax on the same income, the Form 3520/3520-A reporting calendar for the daughter as a U.S. beneficiary of a foreign trust, and the Form 706-NA exposure model for the principal’s U.S.-situs holdings. Each annual U.S. filing became part of one coordinated picture rather than a series of independent returns.
• For the Canadian counsel: the estate instruments composed with full U.S. context
  Canadian primary and secondary wills, powers of attorney, and the related Canadian instruments were drafted by Canadian counsel under his existing mandate. The Senatus bench provided the U.S.-situs analysis under IRC section 2104, the treaty Article XXIX-B prorated unified credit calculation, and the daughter’s New York domiciliary status — intelligence that let Canadian counsel sign confident drafts that would actually administer correctly when assets crossed the border on the principal’s death.
• For the Canadian CPA: a cross-border tax model that finally connected the two systems
  The Canadian CPA kept her file. The Senatus bench built the integrated model that connected the Canadian T1, T3, and T1135 reporting to the U.S. 1040-NR, 706-NA, 3520, and FBAR reporting on the U.S. side — including treaty election sequencing, the Canada–U.S. foreign tax credit interaction, and the multi-year distribution plan that minimizes double tax exposure for the U.S.-resident daughter. The Canadian CPA’s annual filings became part of a coordinated cross-border picture for the first time.
• For the family: a trustee structure that satisfies the U.S. court and control tests
  A U.S.-resident trustee with situs in Florida was selected and retained at the family’s direction, replacing the prior Canadian-resident trustee whose presence was both failing the IRC section 7701(a)(30)(E) control test and creating subsection 94(3) deemed Canadian residency on the same trust — an expensive double-failure that capable counsel on each side had no way to surface alone. The Senatus bench documented the trust-residency analysis for both U.S. and Canadian counsel; the new trustee received cleaner operating instructions than the structure had been working under for nine years.

Every advisor on the file kept their seat and kept their relationship with the family. The Senatus bench did not replace any of them; it positioned each to do their best work with the cross-border intelligence the file had never been organized to provide. The Canadian partner stayed Canadian counsel of record. The Florida partner stayed Florida counsel of record under the Florida Trust Code. The U.S. tax advisor stayed counsel of record on the IRC side. The bench was the connective tissue that made the file finally read as one across both regimes.

What it meant for the family

• The U.S. tax bill that was waiting for the family quietly went away
  U.S. estate tax that would have surfaced on the principal’s death — on the Florida property, the U.S. shares, and the dormant U.S. bank account — was retired in advance through structures already permitted by the treaty. The family no longer carries an exposure they did not know they had.
• The daughter is finally a real part of the family plan, not an exception to it
  Her New York life, her American children, and her U.S. tax filings are now written into the architecture instead of carved around it. She is no longer the part of the plan everyone hopes will somehow work out across the border.
• The Florida property is held the way the family always thought it was
  The trust now does what the family understood it to do when it was drafted. Capable American counsel built it correctly for one country; the architectural review made sure it did not quietly stop working when the family lived in another.
• Both sets of advisors are finally working as one team for the family
  Canadian counsel, Florida counsel, the Canadian CPA, and the U.S. tax advisor are now coordinated through the Senatus bench. The family no longer has to be the bridge between their professionals — and each professional gets to do better work because the work on the other side of the border is finally being read alongside their own.
• The next generation can live where they choose without breaking the plan
  Whichever country the children settle in — and whichever country their children settle in after them — the architecture is composed to absorb the move rather than be undone by it. The family is no longer one cross-border decision away from a structural redo.
• Plus additional considerations composed privately
  Further items addressed in the engagement that, by the family’s preference, are not summarized here.