However, at a certain point this activity may create a tax presence.
A tax presence means that the local tax authorities consider your business as local enough to tax you — even if you have no legal entity, branch, or registration. In tax treaties this is called a permanent estabishment, but the concept is broader.
If your activities create a tax presence, this can trigger obligations such as:
corporate income tax on locally attributable profits
local bookkeeping and reporting requirements
registration with tax authorities
penalties or retroactive tax assessments if risks are missed
The difficulty is that tax presence is not always obvious.
Many companies assume that “no company” automatically means “no tax”, which is not always correct.
Tax presence risks often arise when a company:
has employees or directors working from another country
uses local sales agents or representatives
carries out long-term projects or on-site activities
operates warehouses or fixed facilities
manages local operations from a home office
Whether these activities create a tax presence depends on how authorities apply these tax rules in practice.
Tax presence questions in Canada are primarily handled at the federal level, but provincial taxation adds an important second layer of exposure.
At federal level, audits, assessments and treaty interpretation are carried out by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which applies a strongly substance-based approach in cross-border situations (link).
In addition, Canadian provinces levy their own corporate income taxes. While many provinces align closely with federal concepts, separate filing and allocation obligations may still arise (link).
Disputes are resolved through the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada. Case law plays a central role in defining when foreign businesses are considered to be carrying on business in Canada (link).
In practice, Canadian tax presence assessments are fact-intensive and often conservative, particularly where people or revenue-generating activities are located in Canada.
For companies resident in treaty countries, Canadian federal income tax exposure is generally assessed under the permanent establishment article of the applicable tax treaty. Most Canadian treaties closely follow the OECD model, but Canadian courts have developed a detailed body of interpretative case law.
The CRA examines whether a foreign enterprise has a fixed place of business in Canada or operates through a dependent agent, focusing on functional and economic substance rather than formal arrangements.
Remote work and home office arrangements have become an increasingly relevant factor in Canadian tax presence analysis, especially for foreign companies employing Canadian-based staff.
Canadian case law and CRA administrative guidance indicate that a home office may constitute a fixed place of business where it is used on a regular and continuous basis for the employer’s business and is effectively at the disposal of the employer. The analysis centres on whether the location is required for the business, rather than on legal ownership of the premises (link).
In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dudney v. The Queen, the Court examined whether work performed in Canada created a permanent establishment and emphasised the importance of control over, and right of access to, the premises used (link).
While Dudney involved an individual consultant, its reasoning is frequently applied by analogy in corporate remote work situations, particularly when assessing whether a foreign employer has a fixed place of business in Canada.
Canada has a well-developed body of jurisprudence on dependent agents and sales-related activities.
In the leading case of Knights of Columbus v. The Queen, Canadian courts considered whether insurance agents operating in Canada constituted a permanent establishment of a foreign insurer. The Supreme Court focused on the degree of authority and functional integration of the agents in the business model (link).
The case confirmed that even where contracts are formally concluded outside Canada, a dependent agent permanent establishment may arise if Canadian-based personnel play a decisive role in soliciting, negotiating or maintaining customer relationships.
The CRA has consistently applied this reasoning in audits involving sales representatives, commissionaire arrangements and customer-facing support roles (link).
A distinctive feature of the Canadian system is the concept of “carrying on business in Canada”, which can create filing and withholding obligations even where treaty protection ultimately eliminates income tax.
Foreign companies may be required to file Canadian tax returns and seek treaty-based relief if they are considered to be carrying on business in Canada under domestic law, a threshold that is interpreted broadly (link).
This creates compliance exposure even in situations where no permanent establishment is ultimately found.
Scrutiny by Canadian tax authorities typically increases where foreign companies employ Canadian-based staff on a permanent basis, where sales or customer relationship management is conducted locally, where home offices are used structurally, or where Canadian activities are closely linked to revenue generation.
Canadian assessments tend to take a holistic view of the business, with strong emphasis on functional integration and economic reality.
If tax presence is established, Canada may levy federal and provincial corporate income tax on profits attributable to Canadian activities. This is often accompanied by detailed bookkeeping, transfer pricing and profit attribution requirements.
Retroactive assessments are common, and failure to file required returns can result in penalties even where treaty relief ultimately applies.
In Canada, incorporation often becomes the cleaner option once employees are permanently based in Canada, when sales or customer-facing roles operate locally, when ongoing compliance obligations arise under the “carrying on business” rules, or when predictability is preferred over continued reliance on treaty relief. At that point, incorporation typically provides greater certainty and simplifies both tax and operational compliance.
Across tax systems, the assessment of tax presence typically follows a consistent set of underlying principles:
Substance over legal form
Actual business activities and economic reality carry more weight than contractual labels or formal structures.
People and decision-making
Where key individuals work, negotiate, manage operations or make decisions is often decisive.
Continuity and regularity
Ongoing or recurring activities are treated differently from occasional or incidental involvement.
Economic value creation
Where value is created, managed or controlled is a central factor in tax attribution.
These principles explain why the absence of a legal entity does not automatically eliminate tax exposure.
Tax presence risk is most commonly associated with the following types of activities:
Employees or directors working structurally from another jurisdiction
Sales personnel or agents with decision-making authority
Long-term or recurring on-site projects
Fixed places of business such as offices, warehouses or workshops
Home offices used as a regular base for business operations
The decisive factor is rarely a single activity, but rather the combination, duration and functional role of these activities.
Certain activities are widely regarded as preparatory or auxiliary and typically do not, on their own, create tax presence:
Occasional business travel
Pure marketing or promotional activities
Independent agents acting in the ordinary course of their business
Short-term presence without operational continuity
Supporting functions without decision-making authority
Risk may still arise when these activities evolve or are combined with more substantive functions.