If income is sourced to a state, that state can require a return from you whatever your country of residence. Wages for work performed inside the state, rent from property located there and receipts from business carried on there are the usual sources. Each state writes its own sourcing rules and its own filing thresholds, so the question is settled state by state rather than once for the whole country. We start from where the work was physically done and where the property sits, then read the rule of each state that shows up. A federal return does not answer the state question and does not stand in for a state filing.
Who files US state non-resident returns?
- 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
Non-residents and foreign residents with income sourced to a US state — wages worked in-state, rental property, or business receipts. The obligation is decided by facts rather than by tax owing, which is why a nil position does not remove it.
The rule on who files
Non-residents and foreign residents with income sourced to a US state — wages worked in-state, rental property, or business receipts.

When the rule breaks
A treaty binds the federal government, not every state. A filer whose federal position is protected by a treaty article can still owe state tax and file a state return, which is the single most common surprise in a cross-border employment file.
What to do next
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on State returns — for a nonresident alien. Describe the situation in your own words; translating it into forms is our job.
Reviewed for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. This is general information rather than advice about your file — a short call is the way to get the second.
Cross-border tax case studies
Splitting a secondment's wages between two states by workday
An employee spent a working year moving between two states on a single assignment, with one employer, one wage statement and withholding sent to one of them. We rebuilt a workday calendar from flight records, hotel folios and a project diary, then allocated the wages to each state on its own sourcing rule. Non-resident returns went in for both states, one of them claiming a refund of tax withheld to a state that had no claim on those days. The engagement produced a documented allocation and a workday record the employer now keeps as it goes along.
Read how this one runsA Canadian landlord who had never filed in the property's state
A Canadian resident had owned a let property in one state for years, reporting the rent federally and at home but never to the state where the building stands. We established the state's own basis and deduction rules, which departed from the federal figures that had been used, and prepared non-resident returns for the open years on that footing. The engagement produced a filed set of state years, a corrected basis schedule carried forward for the eventual sale, and a reconciliation showing how the state result feeds the credit claimed at home.
Read how this one runsTreaty position accepted federally and assessed by the state anyway
A consultant's federal filing rested on a treaty article and had been settled without difficulty. The state where the work was performed does not give effect to that article, and its notice arrived afterwards. We read the state's own law rather than arguing the treaty, accepted the state as a taxing jurisdiction for those days and filed the non-resident return it wanted. The engagement produced a filed state return, a written note of why the federal and state answers differ on identical facts, and a revised home-country credit claim reflecting the state tax.
Read how this one runsDeciding which states a service business had to file in
A small service business invoiced customers in several states from one location, with occasional site visits. We built a schedule of receipts by customer location and a record of the days staff spent in each state, then tested both against each state's own rule for when a non-resident business must file. Some states were in and some were out on the same year of trading. The engagement produced returns in the states that required them, a written basis for the states left out, and a recording habit that makes the following year's test a desk exercise.
Read how this one runsA bonus received following a move out of the state
A bonus landed after an employee had left the state for good, and the employer sourced all of it to the state where the payroll team sits. The amount related to work performed earlier, partly inside that state and partly elsewhere. We traced the period the bonus rewarded, apportioned it on that period's workdays and filed non-resident returns accordingly, with a claim where the withholding exceeded the state's own entitlement. The engagement produced a documented apportionment of a single award across two states and a note the employer can apply to later awards.
Read how this one runsRepairing payroll withheld to the wrong state
An employer had withheld for the state where its payroll team sits while the employee worked across the line in a neighbouring state. Two filings were needed, and in the right order: a non-resident return in the state where the work was done, showing the tax properly due there, and a claim in the state that had been paid in error. We also gave the employer a workday reporting form so that the following year's withholding follows the work. The engagement produced a settled balance in one state and a recovered amount from the other.
Read how this one runsA Non-Resident Estate Holding US Assets
US situs assets sit inside the US estate tax net regardless of where the owner lived, and the exemption available to a non-resident is not the resident one. The file establishes situs asset by asset before any relief is claimed.
Read how this one runsA US LLC Owned by a Canadian, Taxed Twice by Design
The two countries classify an LLC differently, so the credit relief that ought to apply frequently does not. The engagement looks at whether the structure can be changed, and where it cannot, at how to make the credit work.
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
Asked next about State returns
Not by itself. The treaty binds the federal government; a state is not a party to it and many states do not follow it. So a filer whose federal position is protected by a treaty article can still be a taxpayer in the state where the work was done, with a return to file and tax to pay there. This is the single most common surprise in a cross-border employment file, and it usually appears after the federal return has already been settled. Where a state does give effect to a treaty position it does so under its own law, which has to be checked in that state rather than assumed.
Possibly. Wages are sourced to the state where the work was physically performed, so a short visit can create income in that state. What differs is the point at which the state asks for a return: some set a threshold by earnings, some by time present, some by neither. Because the tests are written state by state, the answer follows from that state's own rule rather than from a general principle. The practical work is evidential. A workday record showing which days were spent where, built from travel documents and a diary, is what supports either filing or not filing.
Rent from property located in a state is income sourced to that state, so the state can require a non-resident return even though you have never lived there and your tenant pays you outside it. The return is separate from the federal one and is prepared on the state's own rules for what is taxable and what may be deducted, which do not always match the federal treatment of the same building. Depreciation and the treatment of losses are the usual points of difference. Keeping the state's own basis figures from the first year saves reconstructing them when the property is eventually sold.
Withholding is a payment on account, not a return. The state has been given money and a wage statement naming you, and nothing in that tells the state how much of your income it may tax. Filing is how the two are squared, and it is also the only way to recover tax withheld to a state that was not entitled to it. Two errors show up often: withholding sent to the state of the payroll office rather than the state where the work was done, and withholding continued after an employee had stopped working in that state. Both are fixed by filing in each state on its own footing.
Receipts from business carried on in a state are sourced to that state, so a return can be required from a business with no office and no staff there. The tests are the state's own, and they differ in what they count: the presence of people, the place where a service is delivered, and the destination of sales all appear in different states' rules. Because the tests differ, the same year of trading can create a filing obligation in one state and none in the neighbouring one. The starting point is a schedule of receipts by customer location and of the days people spent in each state.
A wealth-and-departure tax has been proposed in California more than once and has not been enacted. What does exist is enforcement of the ordinary rules, which reaches further than people expect: California taxes its residents on everything and taxes non-residents on California-source income, so trailing items from work done there remain taxable, and a change of residence is tested against a long list of factors rather than a moving date. See state residency and domicile.
By the route that country provides, and it is rarely automatic. Where an elective return is available — on rent or pension income, for instance — filing it recomputes the tax on net income and refunds the difference. Where it is not, you file a refund claim with the withholding authority, supported by evidence of your residence and entitlement to the treaty rate. Both take time, which is why fixing the rate before payment is worth more. See withholding refund and recovery.



