Frequently yes. Working in the United States on a work visa while keeping Canadian ties commonly makes you taxable in both countries on the same employment income for the same year, and neither filing removes the other. What the federal treaty does is decide which country may tax what, and give a credit so the same income is not taxed twice over. That relief is claimed on a return. So the practical answer is two federal filings that have to agree with each other, plus whatever the state requires on its own rules.
What do I have to file as Canadian working in the US?
- 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
The federal treaty allocates employment income and gives the credit that prevents double tax; states set their own residency and sourcing rules and are not bound by it. The filing set follows from the position, so the position is established first and the forms follow.
What actually has to be filed
The federal treaty allocates employment income and gives the credit that prevents double tax; states set their own residency and sourcing rules and are not bound by it. Social security is handled separately again, through the totalization agreement rather than the tax treaty.

The carve-out
A Canadian on a US work visa is usually taxable in both countries in the same year, with a state that may ignore the treaty entirely sitting on top.
Where to go from here
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on Canadian working in the US — taxes on a TN, H-1B or L-1. We will tell you if you do not need us. That happens more often than you would expect.
Reviewed for accuracy 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.
Files that look like this one
A first dual year prepared in the right order
An engineer moved to a United States employer on a work visa in the spring and had two sets of obligations for one year. We settled residency for each country first, divided the employment income by where the duties were performed, prepared the return carrying the primary charge, and then claimed the credit on the other. The engagement produced two federal returns that agree with each other, a state filing consistent with both, and a working paper setting out the sourcing split.
Read how this one runsState residency argued on domicile evidence rather than day counts
A worker had left a state mid-assignment but that state continued to treat him as resident, pointing to a house and a driving licence he had never dealt with. Its test was its own, and the federal treaty had nothing to say about it. We assembled evidence of the change of domicile — lease, registration, family location, working location — and filed on that basis. The engagement produced a stated non-resident position for the state, and a schedule of the ties that had to be closed to support it.
Read how this one runsWorkdays split between an Ontario home and a US office
A commuter crossed the border most weeks and worked some days from her home, and the payroll system treated the whole salary as arising in one place. The division mattered to the federal allocation and to the state. We built the sourcing from her own calendar and border crossing records rather than an estimate, then applied it consistently across the filings. The engagement produced a documented day split, returns in both countries prepared on the same figures, and a record she now maintains weekly.
Read how this one runsDuplicate social security contributions unwound for a secondee
A seconded employee was contributing to both countries social security systems on the same earnings, because the tax side of his file had been handled and the contributions question had not. That question sits under the totalization agreement rather than the treaty. We established which system he should have been in, obtained the certificate that evidences it, and took it to both payroll departments. The engagement produced contributions to one system only, a corrected payroll record, and recovery of the duplicated deductions for the period covered.
Read how this one runsResidency settled first for a transferee who kept Canadian ties
An intra-group transferee moved to the United States but left a family home, a spouse and provincial arrangements behind, and had been told two different things about whether he remained resident in Canada. Everything else depended on that. We worked through the ties and the pattern of presence, formed a position, and only then prepared the filings. The engagement produced a documented residency conclusion for the year, returns in both countries built on it, and a list of the ties that would change the answer if they changed.
Read how this one runsSeveral years of Canadian filings brought up to date
A visa holder had filed diligently in the United States for years and not at all in Canada, on the understanding that paying tax in one country settled the matter. Canadian residency had never actually been broken. We established the residency position for each year, prepared the missing returns, and claimed relief for the United States tax charged on the same employment income. The engagement produced a filed set of years, a documented credit position, and an answer to the state question nobody had asked.
Read how this one runsNever Filed a US Return — and Only Just Found Out
Born in the United States, left as an infant, and told by a bank that the returns were owed all along. The work is sequencing: establish which years are actually open, choose the catch-up route on the facts rather than filing quietly, and claim the exclusions and credits that were never taken.
Read how this one runsYears Filed Quietly, and What That Cost
Posting missing returns without taking a view on the route gives up the certification-based protection and can itself be read as an indicator. The first task on these files is mapping which years remain eligible for which route.
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
The follow-up questions on Canadian working in the US — taxes on a TN, H-1B or L-1
No, and this is the part that catches people. The treaty binds the two federal governments. States write their own residency and sourcing rules and are not obliged to follow a federal treaty position at all, so income the treaty allocates one way can still be taxed by a state on its own test. The state analysis is therefore a separate exercise with its own conclusion, run alongside the federal one rather than derived from it. A file that looks only at the two federal returns is an incomplete file.
Ask instead which country has the primary claim on that income under the treaty, because the credit mechanism depends on the answer. Employment income is generally allocated to the country where the duties were performed, and the other country, typically the one where you remain resident, allows relief for the tax the first one charged. The practical consequence is the order of preparation. The return carrying the primary charge is prepared first, because its final figure is an input to the credit claimed on the other. In the wrong order you prepare one of them twice.
Through a different instrument. Social security is not dealt with by the tax treaty but by the totalization agreement between the two countries, which decides which system a worker contributes to and prevents contributions to both on the same earnings. It is claimed with its own documentation, obtained through the relevant authority, and a payroll department will keep deducting until it sees that document. Because it sits apart, it can be missed entirely on a file where the tax side was handled carefully, so it is worth raising explicitly rather than assuming the treaty covered it.
Start by settling residency for each country across that year, because the filings follow from it and not the other way round. A move part-way through a year commonly produces a period in each country and a return in each, with the employment income divided by where the duties were performed rather than by where the salary was deposited. Then run the state question separately. In that order — residency, sourcing, credit, state — each step has one answer. Beginning instead with the forms means revisiting all four.
This is a state matter rather than a treaty one, and it is resolved on that state own rules about residency and where work was performed. Two things need doing. The payroll record has to be corrected so the deduction stops, which usually needs evidence of where you now live and where the duties are actually carried out. And the amounts already deducted are recovered from that state by filing for the year on the basis that the income was not its to tax. Keep the evidence of your working location, because it decides both.
A levy imposed purely for leaving would face serious challenge under the constitutional protections for interstate commerce and the right to travel, which is part of why proposals stall. But that is not what most states are doing. Taxing income that was earned or sourced within the state before you left is conventional, long upheld, and where almost all real disputes sit — which is why the useful question is sourcing and domicile, not constitutionality. See state non-resident returns.
Yes. US filing follows citizenship, not residence or where the income arose, and the obligation continues for as long as the citizenship does. Two further obligations travel with it and are keyed to account balances rather than income, so they can apply in a year with no US tax at all: the foreign bank account report to FinCEN, and the specified foreign asset statement with the return. Most people who discover a problem discover it there. See two returns as a dual citizen.



