Four offices, one review standard, and clients across Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia.
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) 619-006836 pages in this section. Four offices, one review standard, and clients across Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia.
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, Cross-Border Tax Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Published as general information. For a position on your own file, call the 24-hour helpline.
36 pages. Four offices, one review standard, and clients across Canada, the United States, Europe and Asia. 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.
Nothing is priced from a phone call. We read what you have first, then the fee is set — so the scope and the number are agreed on the same evidence.
Every page on this site and every file we deliver says which practitioner reviewed it — a person, not a team inbox.
An unfiled history is not a reason to wait longer. We assess what is still open and what relief the delay attracts before the first return goes in.
Where a rate or a threshold appears in our writing it names the tax year it belongs to. Where it could not be confirmed, the page describes the mechanism and quotes no number.
Quoted up front, in writing.
Contact Us 24-hour helpline +1 (416) 619-0068We keep the promises short so they stay checkable: a fixed fee in writing before work begins, 18,000+ clients served over 15+ years, and a 5.0/5 Google rating — with the case files published so you can read how engagements actually ended.
We list coverage only where the article can be linked. What we say publicly, and where · Credentials and memberships · Read the reviews
Each of these carries its own guide, pricing pointers and FAQ.
The client wanted a price on the first call and the honest answer was that it could not be given yet. The documents were read first: which authorities had a claim, which years were open with each, and which filings actually followed from that. The scope was then written down with the years and the returns named, and the fee fixed against it. What the engagement produced before any tax work started was a document both sides could point at, which is what makes a later argument about the bill unnecessary.
The returns sat with authorities on different continents and with different year ends. The file was worked from the two offices closest to those authorities, but with one practitioner answerable for the whole of it, so the sequencing decision was made once rather than negotiated between desks. The documents lived in one place and both sides drew on the same set. What it produced was a pair of returns built on identical underlying figures, and a record of which figure came from which source document.
The preparer had applied a treatment that is right for the more common version of this situation and wrong for the one in front of them, which is what review exists to catch. The second practitioner queried the position, the facts were checked against the documents rather than against the assumption, and the return was rebuilt on the correct basis before anything was filed. The engagement produced a filed return that never needed amending, and a note on file recording why the less obvious treatment was the right one here.
Part way through, a set of filings came to light that nobody had known about at the outset. The work stopped rather than continuing quietly into new territory. What the additional work involved was set out, priced, and sent as a separate quote, and the client decided whether to proceed with it now or deal with it later. The original scope was completed either way. What this produced was a client who was never presented with a bill larger than the figure they had already agreed to.
The file arrived part way through a year, with returns already filed on positions taken by someone else. The first work was not preparation but reconciliation: establishing what had been filed, on what basis, and whether those positions could be carried forward consistently. Most could and one could not, and carrying that one forward would have compounded an error rather than merely inheriting it. What the engagement produced was a documented statement of the opening position and a filing plan that did not rest on assumptions nobody could verify.
An authority wrote several months after filing, asking how one figure had been arrived at. Because the supporting document and the reasoning had been kept when the return was prepared, the reply was a matter of retrieving and explaining rather than reconstructing a year from memory. It was sent within the window the letter set. The engagement produced a closed query and, as a by-product, a demonstration of why the file is assembled the way it is rather than discarded once a return has been accepted.
The employment article turns on where the work is done, who pays, and who bears the cost — three tests that can point in different directions. The file establishes all three before either return is drafted.
Read how this one runsFiling many years at once is a sequencing problem: carry-forwards, instalments and credits from the earliest year feed the latest. Filing them out of order is what turns a recoverable position into an assessed one.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Performance income is taxed where earned — Regulation 105 in Canada, withholding agreements in the U.S. — with special treaty articles overriding the usual rules.
Performance income is taxed where the performance happens, and the deduction is usually taken at source on the gross fee before expenses. Recovering the difference is a filing exercise in the other country, and it only works if the tour, the residency and the withholding certificates were documented while the work was being done.
Where our partners studied — CPA Canada (In-Depth Tax Program), AICPA, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Malaysian Institute of Accountants.
