The Michigan business has traded for thirty years. Why is a North Frontenac company's petition still a new-office case?

Because the test looks at the United States employer, which is the newly formed subsidiary, not at the operation it purchased. A company doing business for less than a year is treated as a new office.

The entity is the employer, not the history

Petitions are filed by an employer, and the employer here is the corporation created to make the acquisition. Its age is measured from its own formation and its own commencement of business, so a subsidiary that opened its doors last month is new even though the assets it bought are old. The consequence is procedural rather than fatal: the initial approval period is shorter and the evidence expected is different, focused on premises secured, the financial ability to pay the transferee and to support a managerial role, and a plan for the first year. The acquisition is an advantage in meeting all three, because premises, revenue and staff already exist. Some groups avoid the issue entirely by having the transaction done by an American entity that has been trading for over a year, which is a corporate decision to take before closing rather than after.

Hypothetical example: a greenhouse company opens a Michigan distribution entity and wants to transfer its Canadian operations director. The first review produces a corporate timeline, share records and a twelve-month employment calendar covering the preceding three years. The payroll records and job descriptions settle the qualifying-employment point; an impressive title alone does not. If the director spent most of that year as an outside consultant, the company must identify a different qualifying employee or postpone the transfer. It cannot cure a missing year by backdating a title after the plan is underway.