Migration Law and Business Relocation: Key Risks and Opportunities

The mass relocation of businesses and professionals as a result of war, sanctions, changes in the tax environment and digital transformation has turned migration law into one of the core areas of legal support. Entrepreneurs increasingly view moving a company, team or individual functions abroad not as an exception but as part of strategic planning. At the same time, every such decision raises complex legal issues: the migration status of owners and key employees, the possibility of remote work, substance requirements abroad and the tax implications for both businesses and individuals.
Why migration law has become part of business strategy
Just a few years ago, issues of visas, residence permits and work permits were considered mainly in the context of personal migration by owners or top managers. Today, migration law is closely integrated into corporate and tax planning: the place of residence of the beneficiary, the CEO’s migration status and the possibility of the team’s lawful presence in another country directly affect tax residency, the ability to open bank accounts, conclude contracts and attract investment.
For IT companies, creative industries, fintech and service businesses, mobility has become crucial: the team may physically be located in different countries while the legal entity is registered in one jurisdiction and clients are in others. This creates a multi‑layered configuration in which migration regimes (visas, residence permits, digital‑nomad or temporary‑protection statuses, etc.) must be aligned with substance requirements abroad and with tax planning.
Status of owners and top management
The first set of questions concerns the personal status of beneficiaries and top managers. Simply “leaving on a visa” does not automatically allow one to manage a business lawfully in a new jurisdiction. Many countries distinguish between:
– tourist status;
– worker status (work permit);
– business‑owner or investor status;
– special regimes for highly qualified specialists, startups and digital nomads.
The right choice affects not only the length of stay but also access to the labour market, the ability to sign contracts in one’s own name, open bank accounts and obtain a local tax number. An inappropriate or merely “formal” status (for example, staying on a tourist visa while actually running a business) may lead to migration violations, deportation, fines and complications in relations with banks and counterparties.
Tax residency and the “centre of vital interests”
The second dimension is the change in tax residency of owners and key people. Many countries apply the “183‑day rule” together with an analysis of the centre of vital interests: family, housing, the main place of work or business management. If an owner spends most of the time abroad, has housing there and manages the company from that country, its tax authorities may consider this person a resident and claim taxation of worldwide income.
For businesses, this means that migration status must be synchronised with tax planning:
– determine in which country the person is a tax resident;
– assess the risks of double taxation;
– take into account double‑tax treaties;
– document where the place of effective management and key functions is located.
Without this, business relocation can complicate rather than optimise the tax profile, when several jurisdictions simultaneously seek to tax the same income.
Relocating the legal entity and substance
The third aspect is moving the legal entity. Registering a company in a new country does not in itself guarantee tax or regulatory benefits if there is no real presence (substance): an office, governing body, staff, expenses and local clients. Regulators and tax authorities increasingly check whether the company is merely a “letterbox” with minimal functions, created solely to reduce taxes or circumvent sanctions.
Businesses should decide in advance:
– which functions the new company will perform (operations, R&D, marketing, holding functions);
– whether key management decisions will be moved there;
– what minimum level of substance is acceptable for banks, investors and regulators in the specific country.
Without a well‑thought‑out plan, the company risks facing refusals to open accounts, suspicions of a sham structure and, in the worst case, reassessment of tax obligations under CFC, anti‑avoidance or BEPS rules.
Status of employees and team‑relocation models
Another important area is employee relocation. Companies combine different models: full relocation of part of the team to one country, distributed remote work with short‑term trips, the use of local entities or PEO/Employer of Record structures. Each model has its own migration constraints.
If an employee actually lives and works abroad, then even with a contract retained with a Ukrainian company, local authorities may treat them as an employee in that country, with all related requirements for work permits, social contributions and taxes. Conversely, formal relocation without real presence (when a person is officially transferred abroad but continues working from Ukraine) can trigger questions from regulators in both states.
To minimise risks, companies should:
– choose a clear and appropriate status for each country (work permit, Blue Card, digital‑nomad visa, self‑employment status, etc.);
– align employment and civil‑law contracts with that status;
– coordinate how employee income and social contributions will be taxed.
Migration compliance and banking risks
Banks, payment institutions and investors are paying closer attention to the migration and sanctions status of beneficiaries and top managers. Breaches of migration rules, sanctions listings or a lack of transparent travel history may lead to refusals to open accounts, transaction blocking or termination of business relationships.
This creates a need for migration compliance as part of overall corporate governance:
– recording the migration status of key persons;
– keeping documents that confirm the legality of their stay and activities;
– regularly auditing compliance with visa and work‑permit conditions;
– integrating this information into KYC files for banks and other financial partners.
For companies working with international clients, this is no longer a “nice‑to‑have” but a practical prerequisite for access to the global financial system.
Strategic planning and the role of the lawyer
Business relocation has ceased to be a one‑off “move” and has become a comprehensive project that encompasses migration, tax, corporate, employment and compliance law. In this process, the lawyer acts as a coordinator:
– analyses the owners’ goals (asset protection, market access, tax planning, family security);
– proposes migration‑status options for owners and team;
– aligns the group‑company structure with substance requirements;
– assesses tax implications for the business and individuals;
– prepares a roadmap for lawful relocation with minimal risk.
For entrepreneurs considering relocation or expansion abroad, it is important to see migration law not as a purely technical “get a visa” procedure but as part of a long‑term strategy for protecting assets, accessing markets and maintaining effective control over the business.
If you have any questions or issues related to migration status, business relocation or planning team moves, please contact our lawyers for individual advice and professional legal assistance.
Author: Ihor Yasko, Managing Partner of JSC “Law Firm WINNER”, PhD in Law.