Skip to content
CANTON DE HATLEY · E-2 FIELD GUIDE

In the Canton of Hatley, should the same resource be counted again when it is recorded by the company?

Sources checked:

THE DIRECT ANSWER

Avoid counting the same capital twice and explain the actual transaction and qualifying treatment.

Reconcile accounting and actual contribution

A later entry does not necessarily represent new money invested. Identify real payments and commitments rather than add every related record into an inflated total.

Reconcile the bank trail, purchase invoice, ownership transfer and accounting ledger asset by asset. A machine bought once does not become additional invested capital when the company later records it, and depreciation or an intercompany entry is not a second cash commitment. Classify professional fees, operating expenses and refundable deposits according to their actual treatment instead of inflating the total. E-2 has no universal minimum; capital must be substantial compared with the cost of establishing or buying this enterprise, irrevocably committed, at risk and tied to a real non-marginal operation. Confirm treaty nationality and the investor’s development and direction through at least 50% ownership or operational control. Budget status-related charges separately. The classification offers no direct permanent-residence path.

Hypothetical example: a Canton of Hatley bookkeeping-firm owner pays personally for a customer-management licence, then sees the identical amount listed as both “software purchase” and “shareholder contribution” in her US company’s draft schedule. She asks the accountant to retain one economic value and annotate the contribution mechanism. Source statements, the vendor receipt and the corporate entry should reconcile without duplication. She then evaluates substantiality against the actual cost of launching the practice, not a doubled spreadsheet total. Transparent arithmetic is stronger than a larger but unsupported investment figure.