Finished cross-border files, published with what came in, what was filed and what it cost — so you can judge us before you call.
Every quote below is reproduced exactly as it appears on the platform and links to the profile it was posted on, so you can check it at source before you call.
No reviews posted yet · profile claimed January 2025
The claims on this site are deliberately few: fixed fees agreed in writing before work starts, 15+ years of cross-border experience, 18,000+ clients served across 4 global offices, a 5.0/5 Google rating, and a helpline that answers 24 hours a day.
Below: how the practice runs, what clients ask first, two worked files with their numbers, the process end to end, and the published fee.
The claims on this site are deliberately few: fixed fees agreed in writing before work starts, 15+ years of cross-border experience, 18,000+ clients served across 4 global offices, a 5.0/5 Google rating, and a helpline that answers 24 hours a day. Anything that cannot be evidenced does not go on a page.
Start with the mechanism, not the form. What separates a good outcome here from an ordinary one is rarely the arithmetic. It is knowing that a specific rule exists for client reviews hub and being able to evidence that it applies.
Every firm says the same things — I want to see the actual outcome.
I want to know what a file like mine looked like when it was finished.
I need to see that someone has handled my exact combination of countries.
None of those is unusual and none of them is a reason to be embarrassed. They are the normal consequence of a system that asks an individual to reconcile two sets of rules that were never designed to fit together. See also fixed fee against hourly, stage by stage.
The arithmetic is more persuasive than the description, so:
Take C$81,000 of income taxed in both countries. Assume the other country charged 26% on it and the home country would charge 29% on the same amount.
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Income taxed in both countries | C$81,000 |
| Tax paid abroad (assumed 26%) | C$21,060 |
| Home tax on the same income (assumed 29%) | C$23,490 |
| Credit available (lesser of the two) | C$21,060 |
| Home tax still payable | C$2,430 |
The credit absorbs C$21,060 and leaves C$2,430 payable at home, because the home rate on this income is the higher of the two. The balance is real cash and it is due on the home timetable, which is why instalments get raised in the first meeting. Change any one of those inputs and the answer moves, which is why we run it on your own figures rather than on an illustration.
The figures here are an illustration, not an engagement: amounts are picked so the mechanism is easy to follow, and every rate or threshold is an assumption of the example. Before anything is filed for you, each one is confirmed with the issuing authority for your own tax year.
Here is the rule doing its work on an actual set of amounts.
Take C$102,000 of income taxed in both countries. Assume the other country charged 32% on it and the home country would charge 44% on the same amount.
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Income taxed in both countries | C$102,000 |
| Tax paid abroad (assumed 32%) | C$32,640 |
| Home tax on the same income (assumed 44%) | C$44,880 |
| Credit available (lesser of the two) | C$32,640 |
| Home tax still payable | C$12,240 |
The credit absorbs C$32,640 and leaves C$12,240 payable at home, because the home rate on this income is the higher of the two. The balance is real cash and it is due on the home timetable, which is why instalments get raised in the first meeting. Your version of this table is the useful one, and it takes a short call and a document pack to produce.
The figures here are an illustration, not an engagement: amounts are picked so the mechanism is easy to follow, and every rate or threshold is an assumption of the example. Before anything is filed for you, each one is confirmed with the issuing authority for your own tax year.
We would rather scope it properly than quote it quickly.
Reviewed for accuracy for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, Cross-Border Tax Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Published as general information. For a position on your own file, call the 24-hour helpline.
This is the page to read on international tax accountant. It takes client reviews hub in order — the test that decides who is affected, the returns and forms that follow from it, and a fee quoted in writing before anything starts.
The client had a completed return in front of them, a number they had not expected, and no explanation they could follow. The review looked at the position rather than the arithmetic: how residence had been determined, which article of the treaty had been applied to each type of income, and whether the foreign income had been reported in the right place. Two of the three held. The third had been decided on the default rather than on the treaty. The engagement produced a written note of where the original was right, an amended return for the part that was not, and the evidence behind the change.
Three beneficiaries in two countries were being asked to approve a distribution none of them could check, and relations between them had become brittle. The work was as much presentation as computation: the same figures set out so that each beneficiary could trace what they were receiving back to the underlying assets and the tax charged along the way. Questions were answered in writing to all of them at once rather than one at a time. The engagement produced a set of workings the beneficiaries could follow, filings consistent with those workings, and approvals given with something to read.
The prospective client had been through an engagement where the named partner was not the person who did the work, and made the question the first item of the conversation. It was answered by naming the preparer and the reviewer and describing what each of them would do. The scope was then written against the documents the company already held, with the gaps listed as separate items rather than folded into a single figure. The engagement produced a transfer pricing file prepared by the person named, a review recorded by the other, and a fee that did not move.
An employee working across a border noticed that the deductions on their pay matched what they expected in neither country, and raised it with the employer, who had inherited the payroll set-up from a previous adviser. The work began with the employment itself: where duties were performed, which entity bore the cost, and what had been certified to each authority. The set-up was corrected going forward and the periods already run were reconciled. The engagement produced a documented basis for the withholding, corrected filings for the affected periods, and an explanation the employee could read.
The client held one quote of a few lines and one that listed what was included, what was not, and what would take the work outside the fee. They asked, reasonably, why the second was so much longer. The answer was that the difference between them was scope rather than price: the shorter quote covered the return and was silent about a foreign reporting obligation the facts clearly created. That item was priced separately and openly. The engagement produced a filed return, the reporting the first quote had not mentioned, and a fee that matched what had been agreed.
The client had read that failing to report accounts abroad carries consequences, could not tell whether their own accounts counted, and wanted the question settled rather than to be reassured. The review worked through each account by how it was actually held, since a joint account, a signing authority over an employer's account and a retirement arrangement are all answered differently. Two accounts were reportable and one was not. The engagement produced the Canadian foreign property reporting and the FBAR filings for the accounts that required them, a written note on the one that did not, and a record to reuse next year.
A cross-border return prepared on one side only is usually right in isolation and wrong in combination. The review checks residence, source and relief in that order, and says plainly whether an amendment is worth making.
Read how this one runsResidence is decided on ties, not on a form, and the review asks for evidence of every one of them. The file assembles the ties that were severed and the ones that remained, and answers the questionnaire against the treaty rather than around it.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Holding structures live or die on treaty access, beneficial ownership and substance — the MLI's principal-purpose test now sits over every arrangement.
A holding structure is only as good as its reporting. Foreign affiliates, accrued passive income and distributions each carry their own return, and the penalties on those attach to the form rather than to any tax being owed — so a structure that saves tax can still cost money if the information returns are late.
On the first call we establish the scope — countries, years, entities, filings — and quote a fixed fee for it in writing. If the scope changes we re-quote before continuing, and nothing is filed until you have approved it.
That is how most of these engagements run. They keep the domestic file, we take the cross-border piece, and the boundary is agreed in writing so nothing is done twice or missed.
Read them where they were posted, not where they were quoted. A firm's own page can reproduce anything; a platform profile carries the account that wrote the review, the date, and the rest of that account's history. The quotes on this page link back to the profile each one came from for precisely that reason. Then read for detail. A review that names the problem the client arrived with, and what was done about it, was written by somebody who remembers the engagement. One that praises professionalism and says nothing else could have been written about any firm in any industry, and often was.
Because clients arrive by different routes and leave feedback where they found you. Some come through a business directory, some through a freelancing platform where the engagement itself was contracted, some through search. Each platform verifies differently. One may confirm that money changed hands through it, another only that an account exists, so the same words carry different weight depending on where they sit, and it is worth knowing which is which before weighing them. A profile that has been claimed but carries nothing posted is not a hidden warning; usually it just means clients were never asked there.
No, and you should be wary of a firm that offers it. Tax files are confidential, and a client introduced to you as a reference has been selected. What can be offered instead is the work itself: published files setting out what arrived, which rule governed, what was filed and what the engagement produced, and a conversation with the person who would run your file, in which you can ask how a comparable matter was handled. That is the better test, because it can be checked against the rules rather than against somebody's memory of being pleased.
Less than you would like about the technical answer, and a good deal about everything else. A client is well placed to say whether the scope was explained, whether the fee held, whether calls were returned and whether they understood what had been filed for them. They are rarely placed to say whether the treaty article relied on was the right one, because that is exactly what they hired somebody to decide. So use reviews for the conduct of the engagement and the published files for the reasoning, and do not ask either of them to do the other's job.
Because filing is not the end of a cross-border file. An assessment comes back, sometimes a query arrives with it, occasionally a request for the documents behind a claim, and a client who was delighted in the spring can hold a different view by the autumn if nobody answered the letter. Asking early collects a verdict on the paperwork; asking later collects a verdict on the work. That delay is also why feedback on tax matters is thinner than for most services: the client has to be still thinking about it once the season is over.
Treat them as claims until you can see the source. Anything reproduced on a website has been chosen by the firm, so the useful question is whether you can get back to where it was posted and read what sits around it. That is the standard applied here, where each quote is reproduced as it appears on the platform and links to the profile it was posted on. If a firm's testimonials cannot be traced anywhere at all, the words may still be true, but you have no way to test them, and in a field where a wrong position costs real money that matters.
It depends on the country, and a day count is only ever the start. Many use a threshold in a tax year, some also look at averages across several years, and some have no day test at all and decide on where your home and life are. Two countries can both conclude you are resident, which is what the treaty tie-breaker exists to settle. Counting days without checking the tie-breaker is how people end up filing as resident nowhere. See the residency tie-breaker.
No — and if you came here to calculate FTP, this is not it. Fund transfer pricing is a bank's internal allocation of funding costs and benefits between its own business units, a treasury and asset-liability management discipline used to measure branch or product profitability. Tax transfer pricing is about prices between legally separate related parties across borders, and about which country taxes the resulting profit. The words overlap; the fields do not. See our transfer pricing work.
Where our partners studied — CPA Canada (In-Depth Tax Program), AICPA, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Malaysian Institute of Accountants.
