Case study 1
Two filing calendars aligned before either return was prepared
The client had been filing each side to its own deadline, which meant every credit claim rested on an estimate that was corrected later. The engagement began by mapping both calendars against each other and identifying the last date on which each figure could be fixed. One return was extended so the other's final liability could be used rather than projected. The work produced a written filing sequence the client now runs to each year, and a pair of returns that agreed with each other on the figures at the time they were filed.
Case study 2
A residence question settled under the treaty tie-breaker
Both authorities treated the person as resident under their own domestic tests, which is a normal outcome rather than a contradiction. The work was to apply the treaty tie-breaker in the order it sets out, gather the evidence each step actually turns on, and record the conclusion before either return was prepared. What the engagement produced was a documented residence position, filed consistently on both sides, with the supporting evidence held in one place. The alternative, filing each return on its own assumption, creates a conflict neither authority has any reason to resolve.
Case study 3
Employment income split between two countries by workdays
The contract named one country and the client's calendar showed a great deal of work performed in the other. The engagement rebuilt the year from travel records and diaries, allocating earnings by where the work was actually done rather than where the payroll sat. That allocation then drove both returns and the credit claimed on one of them. What it produced was a defensible split with the underlying day by day record attached, which is the part an authority asks for if it queries the apportionment months afterwards.
Case study 4
A withholding taken at source and reclaimed on documentation
Tax had been deducted at the domestic rate because the payer held nothing to support a reduced treaty rate at the time of payment. Nothing was wrong with the deduction; the documentation had simply arrived too late to affect it. The work was to obtain residence certification for the correct period, establish which refund route the source country provides and what it requires, and file within its own window. The engagement produced a refund claim on file and a standing instruction so the following year's payments were documented before they were made.
Case study 5
A pension taxed in one country and reported in both
The pension was paid from the country the client had left and drawn in the one they had moved to, and it had been appearing on only one return. Treaties deal with pensions in their own article and do not always treat every kind of pension the same way, so the provision that applied had to be established before anything was amended. The work produced consistent treatment across both returns for the years still open, with the deduction taken on the paying side matched to the credit claimed on the other.
Case study 6
A corridor where one side taxes only what is remitted
One country in the pair taxed foreign income only to the extent it was brought in, which made the timing and the route of every transfer part of the tax analysis rather than an administrative detail. The engagement traced which funds had actually moved and what they consisted of, because mixed accounts make that question far harder to answer after the fact. What it produced was a reconstruction of the year's transfers, a filing position on each, and an account structure for the following year that keeps the answer obvious.
Case study 7
Canadian Pension Paid Abroad and Taxed at the Flat Rate
Pension and annuity payments to a non-resident carry a flat withholding that often exceeds what a return would produce. The alternative filing is elective, and whether it helps depends on the total income for the year rather than on the payment alone.
Read how this one runs
Case study 8
A Canadian Working in the US on a Work Visa
Immigration status and tax residence are different tests, and a visa says nothing about which country taxes the salary. The file fixes residence, applies the employment article, and sequences the two returns so the credit lands where it is usable.
Read how this one runs