Probably yes, in any market where you have crossed the local registration test. A marketplace can take the collection obligation onto itself, because the marketplace is treated as the supplier of the sale it facilitates. Your own storefront is not that. When you sell direct to the consumer, the place-of-supply rule, the registration test and the collection all sit with you. The practical consequence is that nobody is monitoring your position on your behalf. A checkout will charge or not charge tax according to how it was configured, and that configuration is a setting rather than a legal position. The first step is a market-by-market list of where you sell, on what volumes, tested against each market's own rule.
How are Shopify & DTC brands 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
Direct-to-consumer sales put the tax determination on the seller rather than a marketplace, so place-of-supply, threshold monitoring and registration all become the brand's own compliance function. The first foreign obligation in this sector is rarely income tax, which is why it is discovered late.
The rule for this sector
Direct-to-consumer sales put the tax determination on the seller rather than a marketplace, so place-of-supply, threshold monitoring and registration all become the brand's own compliance function.

Where the general answer is wrong
No marketplace is collecting for me and I am not sure what I owe where.
How to get this moving
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on Cross-border tax for Shopify & DTC brands. One call is usually enough to know whether this is a filing or a project.
Read and approved 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 situations we are engaged for
Stock moved by a fulfilment partner created an unnoticed registration
A direct-to-consumer brand used a third-party logistics provider that redistributed inventory between warehouses in several countries. Stock had been sitting in a market where the brand had never registered, and holding it there was itself a connection to that market. We obtained stock-by-location reports from the provider, established the date each location was first used, and tested that against the local rule rather than the sales threshold the brand had been watching. The engagement produced a dated registration in that market, the outstanding returns for the periods the stock had been held, and a standing report from the provider so the question can be answered each quarter.
Read how this one runsMoving off a marketplace to an own-brand storefront
The brand had sold through a marketplace that determined and collected tax on its behalf, then launched its own storefront and carried the same assumptions across. Nobody was making the determination any more. We mapped every market the storefront was shipping into, set out the place-of-supply rule and registration test for each, and compared that against what the checkout was actually configured to charge. The engagement produced a market-by-market position paper, a corrected checkout configuration, and a registration in the one market the brand had already crossed. The remaining markets were left unregistered with a documented reason and a review point.
Read how this one runsRefunds that never reached the indirect tax returns
Returns were processed in the payment platform and in the storefront, but the periodic tax returns had been prepared from gross sales. Tax had been remitted on revenue given back to customers, in every period since launch. We reconciled the storefront, the payment processor and the filed returns to a single figure for each period, identified where the refund data had been dropped, and prepared the corrections for the affected periods. The engagement produced amended returns, a reconciliation the finance team now runs before each filing, and a written note of which system is the source of truth.
Read how this one runsThreshold monitoring built before the brand crossed a line
A growing brand was selling into several markets with no way of knowing which one it was about to cross. We took the order data and split it by destination on the basis each market actually uses, some counting consumer sales only and some counting every supply, then built a monthly report against each market's own test and measurement window. Review points were set below each threshold so a registration can be arranged before the trigger date. The engagement produced the monitoring report, a documented test for every market on the list, and a registration in the market the data showed had already been crossed.
Read how this one runsTax collected at checkout in a market with no registration
A configuration change had switched on tax collection for a market the brand was not registered in. Money had been taken from customers as tax for a run of months with nowhere to remit it, which is a worse position than not charging at all. We established when the setting changed, quantified the amounts taken, and approached the market's authority to register from the correct date so the collected tax could be paid over. The engagement produced a backdated registration, the returns for the intervening periods, and a change-control note requiring a tax review before any checkout setting is altered.
Read how this one runsAn indirect tax position documented for an incoming investor
Diligence asked where the brand was registered, where it should be, and what the exposure was in markets where it was not. The brand had answers in several people's heads and nothing written down. We prepared a market-by-market schedule: sales on the local measurement basis, the test applied, the conclusion reached, and the reason for it. Where the position was genuinely uncertain that was stated rather than smoothed over. The engagement produced a single document the brand could hand to diligence, a short list of markets to register in over the following periods, and a quantified range for the markets left open.
Read how this one runsDocumentation Built to the US Standard
The US requirements differ from the OECD-aligned ones in what has to exist at the time of filing, and a file prepared for one regime can leave the other unprotected. The engagement builds to whichever governs.
Read how this one runsIndian Transfer Pricing Certification With a Hard Deadline
An Indian entity with international related-party transactions needs an accountant's report filed by a date of its own, ahead of the return. The work is reconciling the transactions to the books first, because the report is only as defensible as that reconciliation.
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
- 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
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.
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
Shopify & DTC brands: further questions
It often does, and it is the thing a direct-to-consumer brand most commonly discovers late. Many indirect tax systems treat holding stock inside the country as a connection to that country in its own right, separate from how much you sell there. A third-party logistics provider may move your inventory between its warehouses for operational reasons without telling you which country the goods are sitting in on any given day. Your registration position can therefore change because of a decision you did not make. Ask your provider for a stock-by-location report, keep it, and test each location against local rules rather than assuming a sales threshold is the only trigger.
By measuring in advance against each market's own test rather than a single global figure. Tests differ in what they count. Some look at sales to consumers only, some at every supply, some at transaction counts, and the measurement window varies between a calendar year, a rolling year and a forward-looking projection. Your order data already holds what is needed. What is usually missing is a report that splits it by destination market on the same basis the market itself uses. Build that report, review it each month, and set an internal review point below each threshold so a registration is arranged before the trigger date rather than after it.
Yes, and they are frequently left out entirely. A refund reverses a supply that has already been reported, so the tax charged on the original sale is normally adjusted in the period the refund is made. Brands that grew quickly often report from a gross sales figure taken from the storefront while the refunds sit in the payment processor and never reach the return. The result is tax remitted on revenue that was given back to the customer. Reconcile the storefront, the payment processor and the tax return to a single figure each period. Where refunds were missed in earlier periods, the correction usually runs through an amendment rather than a netting in the current one.
For indirect tax on goods sold to consumers, the usual answer is the market you are delivering into, not the one you are sitting in. That is the shift that catches direct-to-consumer brands. You are used to one set of domestic rules, and your customers have quietly made you a supplier in several other systems. Each of those markets applies its own place-of-supply rule, its own registration test and its own filing calendar, and none of them is coordinated with the others. Treat each as a separate question with a separate answer, and write the answer down so it can be revisited as your delivery pattern changes.
No. Registration where it is not required creates filing obligations, deadlines and penalties for late returns, all for no benefit. The discipline is to test each market on its own rule and register where the answer is yes. The harder judgement is the market you are close to crossing. The cost of registering early is a run of nil returns; the cost of registering late is uncollected tax you may have to fund yourself, because you cannot go back to past customers for it. That asymmetry is the reason monitoring matters more than the registration decision itself.
Only where it is earned income reported on a Canadian return. RRSP room is built from earned income that Canada sees, so a non-resident year of foreign salary generally builds none, and foreign tax paid does not create room of its own. This is why people returning to Canada after years abroad find their contribution room much smaller than the years elapsed suggest, and why the notice of assessment is the only reliable statement of it. See returning to Canada after years abroad.
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.



