It can, and this is the part of the arrangement most developers assume is nobody's business but their own. A company can become taxable in a country where its business is carried on through a fixed place, and a developer working at a desk in that country, producing the employer's product, is capable of being that place. No office lease and no local company are needed. If the question is answered against the employer, it acquires a filing obligation and a share of profit taxable in a country it has never operated in. That is why an employer's first reaction to the discovery is often a change to your contract rather than a change to its own filings.
How are software developers 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
A developer working remotely for a foreign employer can create a taxable presence for that employer in the country where the code is written — which turns a personal arrangement into the employer's problem. A provision that applies to this occupation and not the one beside it is what changes the answer.
The rule for this group
A developer working remotely for a foreign employer can create a taxable presence for that employer in the country where the code is written — which turns a personal arrangement into the employer's problem.

The carve-out
My employer has no entity where I live and does not want one.
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 software developers. Send us the facts and we will tell you what has to be filed and what it costs.
Reviewed for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Written as general guidance, not as a recommendation for your situation. Talk it through with us before acting on it.
Cross-border tax case studies
Employer asked whether one developer created a taxable presence
A company with no operations in the developer's country wanted to know what its exposure was before it hired two more people there. We looked at what the developer actually did, how continuously the workspace was used for the company's own product, and whether any contract negotiation ran through the same person. The honest answer was that the arrangement put the question in play. The engagement produced a written analysis for the board, the registration and reporting steps that would follow if it accepted the position, and the contractual changes that would be needed if it wanted a different answer.
Read how this one runsForeign-currency salary and a foreign account brought into the home return
A developer had been paid into an account in the employer's country for several years and had reported neither the salary nor the account where he lived, on the understanding that money not brought home was not income. We converted each year's pay on a consistent basis, prepared the missing returns and dealt with the separate disclosure of the account itself, which carried its own exposure independent of the tax. The engagement produced filed returns for the open years, the asset reporting that had been missed, and a conversion method documented so the next return does not start from scratch.
Read how this one runsOptions granted before a move and vested after it
A developer relocated between grant and vest, and the original country withheld at vest as though the whole award had been earned there. Nothing had been misreported; the withholding simply took no account of where the work had been done in between. We established the earning period from employment records and apportioned the award across the two countries on a working basis. The engagement produced a repayment claim in the country that had over-withheld, a return in the new country reporting its share, and a schedule the developer can reuse for each later tranche.
Read how this one runsDeveloper engaged as a contractor because no entity existed locally
An employer unwilling to register anywhere new had moved a developer onto a contract for services, changing the paperwork but nothing about how the work was directed or supervised. The arrangement would not have survived scrutiny in either country, and it also did nothing about the exposure it was meant to solve. We set out the indicators that pointed to employment and the two routes that would actually work. The engagement produced a written characterisation opinion, a comparison of payroll registration against an employer of record, and a decision the employer recorded rather than left to the payroll team.
Read how this one runsTwo withholdings on one salary and the order of the credit claim
One month's pay had suffered deduction in the employer's country and again where the developer lived, after a local payroll was set up part-way through the year without the first being switched off. The overlap looked like double taxation but was partly an over-deduction, and the two have different remedies. We separated the months where relief was the answer from those where a repayment claim in the employer's country was, then filed in the order that let each claim rely on a settled figure. The engagement produced a recovered over-deduction and relief claimed for the balance.
Read how this one runsEmployer's position paper for a country it does not operate in
A company with several developers in one country and no legal presence there needed something it could give an auditor, having until then relied on nobody asking. We documented what each person did, where the workspace sat and who held authority to conclude contracts, then stated plainly which facts supported a taxable presence and which did not. The engagement produced a position paper the auditors accepted as a considered view, a list of the facts that would change the conclusion if they altered, and an annual review point in the company's calendar.
Read how this one runsResidency Changed Mid-Year and Both Returns Assumed a Full One
A move part-way through a year produces two part-year positions, not two full ones. The engagement establishes the date residence actually changed, allocates income either side of it, and amends whichever return was filed on the wrong footing.
Read how this one runsUS Estate Tax on Assets a Canadian Did Not Know Were Exposed
US shares and US real estate sit inside the US estate tax net regardless of where the owner lives. The treaty provides relief that is proportionate rather than automatic, and the calculation depends on the worldwide estate.
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
Software revenue crosses borders by default — sourcing rules, withholding on licence-like payments and IP location decide the effective rate.
Software revenue is rarely taxed where the team sits. Licence, subscription and service income are characterised differently by each side, and the answer decides withholding at source, treaty relief and whether a foreign customer creates a taxable presence at all — questions that are cheap to settle before the contract and expensive afterwards.
- 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
- 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 Software developers
There are only a few honest answers, and picking one deliberately is better than drifting into whichever the payroll software allows. The employer can register for payroll in your country without forming a company, it can engage a local employer of record, it can accept the corporate exposure and file, or the relationship can be restructured as genuine contracting with the consequences that brings. What does not work is being paid gross through a payroll that reports only to the employer's own country, because that leaves your income unreported where you live and the employer's position undocumented. Get the choice made in writing before the arrangement runs another year.
Both the income and, in many systems, the account itself. Salary is reportable where you are resident whatever currency it is paid in and whichever country the bank sits in, converted to your own currency on a consistent and defensible basis rather than at whatever rate happens to be convenient. Separately, a number of countries require the existence of foreign accounts and assets to be disclosed once they pass a reporting level, with penalties that attach to the failure to report rather than to any tax being owed. The two obligations are independent. Meeting one does not discharge the other, and people who have paid all their tax still miss the second.
Usually both, in shares. Equity earned over a period is generally sourced across that period rather than at a single moment, so where the grant sits in one country and the vest in another, each takes a slice by reference to where you were working while the award was being earned. The complication is timing. Countries fix their taxing point at different events, and the old country often withholds at vest on the whole amount. Recovering the excess means a claim in that country, not simply a credit at home. Keep the grant documents and the working locations for the period between grant and vest, because the split is computed from them.
It can, and the answer turns on the nature of the work rather than on the informality of the setting. The question is whether the employer's business is being carried on through a fixed place at your disposal in that country. A developer's desk, used continuously for the employer's own product, is a stronger case for that than the occasional laptop day. Some systems also reach the same result through an agent who habitually concludes contracts for the employer, which is why a developer who also negotiates is a different question from one who only builds. The determination should be made and written down by the employer, not assumed by you.
Almost certainly yes, and the withholding does not discharge it. Deduction at source in the employer's country is that country's collection mechanism, not a payment on account to yours. If you are resident where you work, that country generally taxes the employment income earned on its soil and taxes your worldwide income besides. You then claim relief for foreign tax properly paid, and sometimes the correct answer is that the other country should not have withheld at all, in which case the remedy there is a repayment claim rather than a credit at home. Work out which of the two it is before filing, because the routes are not interchangeable.
It is legal. Two countries can each have a valid claim on the same income — one because the income arose there, the other because you live there — and nothing prohibits both from exercising it. What exists instead is relief: tax treaties allocate the claim, and domestic law gives a credit for foreign tax paid. The relief is not automatic, though. It is claimed on a return, and unclaimed relief is simply lost. See how double taxation is relieved.
You claim relief once, in the right country, in the right order. Usually the source country taxes first, the residence country then gives a credit for that tax against its own charge on the same income, and a treaty caps the source-country rate. Getting the order wrong is what produces a double charge you then have to unwind. The mechanism differs by income type, which is why we map the whole position before filing either return. See how to avoid double taxation.



