JSVHQTwo residencies feel like optionality until exit season starts.
Founders who split time across hubs often treat residency as a lifestyle detail. On exit it becomes the controlling fact: which competent authority gets the primary claim on the gain, which treaty article applies, and whether the buyer’s counsel will accept the story in the data room.
The pattern we see
- Day-count diaries that do not match bank KYC, board minutes, or family-office calendars.
- A “home” jurisdiction that looks clean on paper while management substance and key contracts sit elsewhere.
- Exit timelines that assume a treaty outcome nobody stress-tested against both competent authorities.
What still holds
Residency is not a logo on a holding company. It is a facts-and-circumstances file: center of vital interests, permanent home, habitual abode, and — when treaties demand it — tie-breaker analysis that survives scrutiny. Structuring that ignores the founder’s actual calendar creates a second crisis after the SPA is signed.
Practical moves before a process
- Reconcile travel, housing, and family facts with the residency position you will assert.
- Map which entity recognizes the gain and which person is treated as alienating shares.
- Align bank and brokerage onboarding narratives with the same residency file — correspondent and KYC teams will not wait for a later memo.
- Decide early whether exit timing should wait for a clean residency year or a planned exit from a dual-status trap.
Discretion note
We do not publish case studies or client names. Patterns above are generalized from confidential advisory work.
Who this is for
Founders and family offices already in motion on exit. Confidential inquiry via jsvhq.com — International Structuring / Due Diligence when exit is already in motion.