Twenty-four corridors with both filing calendars side by side and the treaty article by article.
Secure a fixed quote
Whatever documents you hold are enough to begin: we read them and put a fixed price in writing first.
24-hour helpline: +1 (416) 619-006824 pages in this section. Twenty-four corridors with both filing calendars side by side and the treaty article by article.
Every page in this section is written to the same standard: it opens with the block that exists nowhere else on the site — a threshold, a treaty article, a rule that applies to one group and not the one beside it — and it carries one worked example, worked through in full rather than a set of generalities.
Where a page needs a statutory threshold, a rate or a day-count, that figure is verified against the issuing authority before it ships. Where it cannot be verified for the year in question, the page states the mechanism and quotes no number, because a wrong threshold on a page like this is worse than no page at all. Every statutory page also carries the name of the person who reviewed it and the date they did.
Fees are fixed and agreed in writing before any work begins, and you review the finished work before it is filed. Documents move through a secure portal and you can meet us at any of our offices, so where you are makes no difference to how it works.
Read and approved for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. General information, not advice for your circumstances — call our 24-hour helpline to discuss your own position.
24 pages. Twenty-four corridors with both filing calendars side by side and the treaty article by article. Each one opens with the part that applies to that situation and nowhere else — a threshold, a treaty article, a filing that one group owes and the group beside it does not — and works one example through in full.
The fee is fixed and agreed in writing before any work begins, priced from the documents you send rather than estimated afterwards, and it does not move once accepted. You see the finished work and approve it before anything is filed.
A named adviser reviews every return and every information filing before it goes out, and the statutory pages on this site carry the name of the person who reviewed them and the date they did it. You approve the finished work yourself as the last step.
Send what you have — a return, a notice, a set of statements, in whatever state it is in — through the secure portal after the first call, and you get a written fixed fee back. Or call the 24-hour helpline on +1 (416) 619-0068 and we will tell you what is needed.
A corridor page puts both countries' filing calendars and the treaty that connects them on one page, so you see where the two systems interact — a credit, a tie-breaker, a withholding rate — rather than reading each country's rules in isolation and trying to reconcile them yourself.
The listed corridors are the pairings we see most often; an unlisted pairing is still one we review, using the same country guides and the applicable treaty text directly rather than a pre-built corridor page.
Quoted from your documents and agreed in writing. The number you accept is the number you pay.
You are not the go-between for two sets of advisers with two sets of assumptions. One engagement covers each country the file touches.
Where you are resident for treaty purposes is a question with a method. We work through it and write down the answer, with the facts it rests on.
Two returns built against each other by one team, so relief is claimed exactly once and nothing falls between the two systems.
Quoted up front, in writing.
Contact Us 24-hour helpline +1 (416) 619-0068The claims on this site are deliberately few: fixed fees agreed in writing before work starts, 15+ years of cross-border experience, 18,000+ clients served across 4 global offices, and a helpline that answers 24 hours a day. Anything that cannot be evidenced does not go on a page.
We list coverage only where the article can be linked. What we say publicly, and where · Credentials and memberships · Read the reviews
Every link below is a full page of its own — the same depth as this one, for its own subject.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 runsImmigration 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 runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
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.
Where our partners studied — CPA Canada (In-Depth Tax Program), AICPA, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Malaysian Institute of Accountants.
