It is far more likely to than design work carried out at your own premises. Site supervision puts your people in the project's country, at a fixed location, for as long as the phase lasts, and that is the fact pattern a permanent establishment test is built to catch. Design work done at home has none of those features. So one appointment can sit outside the project country's reach during the first phase and inside it during the next, with no change to the contract. Look at the supervision phase on its own terms before it starts, not at the appointment as one undivided service.
How are architects taxed across borders?
- 15+Years of the founder's cross-border experience
- 18,000+Clients served across our offices in India, the USA, Canada and the UAE
- 5.0Google rating
- 4Global offices — India, USA, Canada & UAE
Design work performed remotely and construction supervision performed on site are treated differently: the second is far more likely to create a taxable presence for the practice in the project's country. A provision that applies to this occupation and not the one beside it is what changes the answer.
The rule for this group
Design work performed remotely and construction supervision performed on site are treated differently: the second is far more likely to create a taxable presence for the practice in the project's country.

The exception
My practice designs from home and supervises abroad.
Where to go from here
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on Cross-border tax for architects. Send us the facts and we will tell you what has to be filed and what it costs.
Read and approved for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Published as general information. For a position on your own file, call the 24-hour helpline.
Cross-border situations we are engaged for
Splitting a single appointment fee between design and supervision
The practice held one appointment covering both phases and invoiced a single fee, and the project country was assessing all of it. We rebuilt the allocation from the fee proposal, the resourcing plan and the time records, separated the work performed at the practice's own premises from the work performed on site, and set the split out with the evidence behind each side of it. The engagement produced a documented fee allocation, a revised computation for the project country limited to the on-site phase, and a clause for future appointments so the split is agreed at the outset.
Read how this one runsRecovering withholding suffered on project fees abroad
A practice had withholding deducted on fees across two projects and had treated the deductions as unrecoverable. We took each project separately. For the one where the treaty left the fee outside the project country's reach we claimed in that country, with the residence certificate and contract documents. For the other, where site supervision had given it a taxing right, we claimed the credit at home instead. The engagement produced a recovered withholding on the first and a credit claim on the second, plus a standing instruction that certificates are collected from the client at each payment.
Read how this one runsRegistering a site office for the supervision phase
The practice was about to station staff on site for the length of construction, having done the design work at home. We set out what the posting would create in the project country, and the practice chose to register rather than argue. We prepared the registration, the filing obligations for the phase, the basis on which profit would be attributed to the site activity, and the reporting arrangement for the staff posted there. The engagement produced a set of filings made on time, from records designed for the purpose before the phase began rather than reconstructed afterwards.
Read how this one runsRevisiting a fee allocation after the principal relocated
The practice's principal changed residency partway through a long project and the appointment was never looked at again. We established the date of the change from travel, housing and registration records, identified the income arising on each side of it, and reallocated the fee between the periods and the countries with a claim over each. The engagement produced a dated residency position, a revised fee allocation for the remainder of the project, and returns in both countries prepared from one timeline instead of two different assumptions.
Read how this one runsRestructuring a joint appointment with a local practice
A cross-border commission was to be delivered alongside an architectural practice in the project country, and the scope had not been divided with tax in mind. We mapped which deliverables required people on site and which did not, and the appointment was restructured so supervision sat with the local practice under its own scope and fee while the design work stayed with the overseas practice. The engagement produced a revised scope split, a fee allocation supported by it, and a note of the position each practice would take in its own country.
Read how this one runsReviewing completed projects where nothing was filed locally
A practice had finished several overseas commissions over a number of years and had never filed in any of the project countries. We reviewed each project against the treaty that applied to it, distinguished those delivered from the practice's own premises from those with a supervision presence, and prepared filings only where a presence had genuinely arisen. The engagement produced host-country returns for those projects, home-country credit claims to match, and a written record of why the remaining projects required none, which is the document the next enquiry will ask for.
Read how this one runsThe Two-Year Window After Returning to India
Returning residents pass through a transitional status in which foreign income is largely outside the Indian net. The engagement establishes when the window opens and closes, and puts the transactions that benefit inside it.
Read how this one runsAn Indian Company Paying a Foreign Supplier
Payments abroad carry deduction at source and a certification filed before the money moves. Whether the treaty reduces the rate depends on what is being bought, and the classification is the decision the whole filing rests on.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
Related-party purchasing, customs value versus transfer price, and foreign-affiliate structures put trading businesses inside the s.247 documentation rules.
Goods crossing a border move the tax question from income to indirect: registration thresholds, place of supply, the customs value and the transfer price between related entities all have to agree with each other. When they do not, the adjustment arrives from two authorities at once and each one uses the other's number.
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
What people ask us about Architects
Follow the work rather than the invoice. A single fee covering design and site supervision is doing two different things for tax, and the project country's claim is strongest over the part earned by people present there. If the appointment does not split the fee, somebody else will split it later, either that country's revenue authority or your home country when it assesses a relief claim, and their split will not be built from your records. Set the allocation out in the appointment, support it with the fee proposal and the resourcing plan, and record time by phase so the split can be evidenced.
It depends on whether that country had the right to tax the fee at all. Where the treaty leaves the fee outside its reach, or reduces the rate, the route is a claim in that country, supported by a residence certificate and the contract. Where it did hold a taxing right, which supervision on site often gives it, the tax is not recoverable there and belongs instead as a credit against home-country tax on the same profit. Most failed recoveries fail on paperwork: the withholding certificates were never collected from the client while the project was still live.
Yes, and that distinction carries most of the answer for a practice working across borders. Design is a service you can perform from your own premises, leaving nothing behind in the project's country. Supervision puts staff on a site for a sustained period, which is what creates a taxable presence for the practice and, often, a local reporting duty for the people posted there. Building and installation projects also have their own treatment in many treaties. Before you accept a supervision scope, identify which article the project country will apply to it, because that decides whether the fee carries a local filing.
Yes, and it rarely is. The practice's exposure in the project country and the principal's own residency are separate questions, but the second changes who taxes the practice's profits and which treaty applies to the fee. A split agreed while you were resident in one country may allocate income to a place with no remaining claim on you, or ignore one that now has a claim. Revisit the appointment, the fee allocation and the invoicing entity at the point the residency changes, and record the date. Reconstructing when it happened, from memory, three years later is the harder exercise.
Occasional visits and a supervision posting are different things, and registration usually follows the second. The question to answer is what your people do in that country and for how long: attending a monthly progress meeting is not the same as stationing an architect on site through construction. Withholding on your fee can also create obligations of its own, independent of whether the practice has a presence. Decide the point at which the practice would register before the project reaches it, so the choice is made against a plan rather than discovered in a demand.
Missed years are handled as one package, not one at a time, because the route chosen for the first year determines the relief available for the rest. Each country has a disclosure or relief programme with its own conditions, and entering the right one — before the authority contacts you — is usually what keeps penalties down. Filing quietly outside a programme forfeits that protection. See catching up on missed returns.
A remittance is a transfer of money, not a category of income, and moving your own funds between your own accounts is not what creates tax. What can create tax is the income behind the money and the rules of the country it leaves. India, for instance, collects tax at source when a resident individual remits abroad under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme, and requires certification before certain payments leave. The transfer is the trigger for paperwork rather than for tax. See the LRS and tax collected at source.



