Read the general pathway comparison overview
Hypothetical example: the owner of a Coalhurst gravel-hauling company holds half the shares with his brother and is deciding whether to transfer himself into an American subsidiary or to invest in an American business personally. The comparison usually resolves on one fact: whether the Alberta company will keep trading and keep employing him, because a transfer route depends on that and an investment route does not.
A transfer needs the company abroad to stay alive
A transfer requires a qualifying relationship between the two entities with both actively doing business, and one continuous year of qualifying employment with the company abroad within the preceding three years. If the plan is to wind the Coalhurst company down, sell the trucks and move everything south, the relationship supporting the transfer disappears with it. Where the Alberta business will keep running with the brother in charge, the structure is available and the ownership split needs checking against the relationship definitions. Work out too who would hold the Alberta shares if the brothers' arrangement changed during the assignment, because the relationship has to survive the whole period and not only the filing date.
An investment needs the investor's own money and authority
Treaty investment requires nationality for both the investor and the enterprise, funds irrevocably committed and at risk, an amount substantial in proportion to the business, an enterprise that is real, operating and not marginal, and an investor who develops and directs it. None of that depends on the Coalhurst company continuing. It does depend on the investor's own capital and control, so a fifty per cent shareholder who intends to invest corporate funds while his brother retains half the shares needs to work out whose money is being invested and who directs the American enterprise.
Write the two fact lists and mark what you can prove
Put the requirements side by side and mark each item proven, provable or doubtful on today's evidence. Payroll for the qualifying year is usually provable. A relationship between entities with a fifty-fifty shareholding needs checking. Substantiality depends on a costing nobody has done yet. Control depends on a decision the brothers have not made. The route with fewer doubtful items is generally the right one, and the exercise also produces the task list for whichever route is chosen. Redo the exercise once the doubtful items have been investigated, since a single answer from an accountant or a lawyer often moves two or three lines at once and changes the conclusion.
What else is on your mind?
Does being a business owner or director qualify me for L-1A?What employment history should an L-1 transfer review cover?What makes a new-office L-1A case different?How should an owner compare L-1 and E-2?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.