Swiss Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Permit: Structuring Assignments, Prior Group Employment and Swiss Salary Benchmarking

Multinational employers often assume that an intra-company transfer to Switzerland is a relatively straightforward, “internal” move. In practice, Swiss work authorisation for non-EU/EFTA nationals remains tightly regulated and is assessed through the same core lenses that apply to third-country hires generally: whether the role is justified, whether the individual is suitably senior or genuinely specialist, whether the Swiss entity will comply with Swiss salary and working conditions, and whether the proposed arrangement is coherent, time-limited where appropriate, and properly evidenced.

The “Swiss ICT permit” is not a single permit category in the way that ICT schemes operate in certain other jurisdictions. Rather, intra-group transfers are a common fact pattern under which Swiss authorities consider applications for a short-term L permit or a residence B permit with work authorisation, typically under the framework for third-country nationals. The intra-group context can help explain why a particular person is required in Switzerland and why local recruitment is not realistic, but it does not remove the need to demonstrate compliance with Swiss labour market and salary requirements, nor does it eliminate the scrutiny applied to the seniority or specialist nature of the role.

This article explains how to structure an assignment so that it matches Swiss regulatory expectations, what evidence employers should prepare on the corporate group link and assignment rationale, how to think about prior group employment and “specialist” positioning, why Swiss salary benchmarking is frequently decisive, and what tends to trigger refusals.

1. Understanding the Swiss legal context for intra-company transfers

For non-EU/EFTA nationals, Swiss work and residence authorisation is governed by the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act (FNIA) and its implementing framework, with decision-making shared between cantonal labour market and migration authorities and the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) for approvals in quota-controlled categories. Even where the individual is moving within the same group, the Swiss entity is ordinarily the sponsoring employer for Swiss purposes and must be able to show that the engagement in Switzerland complies with Swiss standards.

The intra-company transfer narrative is most persuasive where it aligns with the policy rationale underpinning Swiss admissions: Switzerland generally admits third-country nationals who are managers, specialists, or other qualified workers, and where the business need is credible and proportionate. An “ICT” application that in substance resembles a routine staffing decision for a role that could be readily filled locally will predictably face difficulties, particularly if salary benchmarking is weak or the “specialist” label is asserted rather than demonstrated.

Employers should also plan around quotas and processing realities. Non-EU/EFTA L and B permits are commonly quota-controlled, and timelines vary significantly by canton, seasonality and the completeness of the submission. A well-structured file is not a cosmetic exercise; it is often the difference between a smooth canton-level approval and a prolonged SEM review or refusal.

2. Structuring the assignment: the narrative Swiss authorities expect

Authorities tend to respond best to assignments that are framed as time-bound, project-driven and anchored in a clear business need in Switzerland. Even where the Swiss entity wishes to retain the transferee longer term, it is usually unhelpful to submit an application that reads as an open-ended relocation without a coherent Swiss role description, Swiss reporting lines, and a credible explanation of why this specific person must be in Switzerland.

A persuasive assignment rationale generally answers four questions in a way that is consistent across the employer letter, the employment documentation and any project materials.

• First, what is the Swiss business purpose (for example, implementation of a specific system, establishment of a regulated function, transfer of know-how, launch of a product, remediation programme, group integration after an acquisition)?

• Secondly, why does it have to be done in Switzerland rather than remotely, or by short visits?

• Thirdly, why does it require this individual rather than a local hire or an EU/EFTA hire?

• Fourthly, what does “success” look like and what is the expected duration?

Where the case is built around knowledge transfer, employers should avoid vague language. Swiss authorities are accustomed to seeing “knowledge transfer” used as a catch-all justification. It is more effective to describe concretely what know-how is being transferred, why it is proprietary or scarce, who the Swiss counterparts are, and how the transferee will enable the Swiss entity to operate independently after the assignment.

The legal structure of the engagement must also match the narrative. If the individual will be employed and paid by the Swiss company, the Swiss salary benchmarking must be met in the Swiss contract. If the individual remains on a home contract with the Swiss entity as host, the file must still demonstrate that Swiss salary and working conditions are met in substance, and that Swiss employment law and social security positioning have been addressed appropriately. Swiss authorities are particularly sensitive to arrangements that appear designed to import non-Swiss employment terms into Switzerland.

3. Evidencing the corporate group link and the prior employment relationship

Because “ICT” is fundamentally an intra-group scenario, employers should treat the corporate link evidence as a core part of the application rather than an annex. The goal is to make it easy for a case officer to understand, at a glance, how the Swiss host entity relates to the sending entity and where the transferee sits within that structure.

In practice, this is usually done with a concise group structure chart showing shareholdings, the relevant entities, and the position of the Swiss company. It should be consistent with extractable corporate records. The supporting documents typically include commercial register extracts (or equivalent) for the Swiss entity, proof of ownership or control where it is not obvious, and a short explanatory letter confirming that the entities are part of the same corporate group.

Prior group employment is often a make-or-break issue, especially where the employer wants the authorities to treat the move as a genuine transfer of an established internal resource rather than a newly recruited third-country national being channelled through an overseas group company. Employers should therefore evidence the transferee’s employment history within the group clearly: employment contracts, confirmation of employment, payslips, and role descriptions that demonstrate progression and seniority or specialist depth. If the individual has moved between group companies, the file should explain the pathway rather than leaving the authority to infer it.

Where prior employment is short, fragmented, or appears artificial (for example, a last-minute engagement with a group company shortly before the Swiss application), the employer should expect heightened scrutiny. In that situation, the case needs to work harder on the “qualified worker” aspect and on the labour market justification, because the intra-group narrative will carry less weight.

4. Seniority and “specialist” positioning: what needs to be shown, not said

Swiss authorities do not generally accept titles at face value. A “Senior Manager” title with junior-level duties is unlikely to succeed, and a “Specialist” label is not persuasive unless the employer can show that the expertise is both advanced and relevant to Switzerland.

For senior roles, the file should demonstrate genuine managerial responsibility: budget ownership, headcount management, decision-making authority, and senior reporting lines. For specialist roles, the emphasis should be on scarcity and complexity. The employer should connect the individual’s expertise to the Swiss assignment with specificity, such as experience with a particular proprietary platform, a rare engineering competence, a niche compliance function, or deep knowledge of the group’s internal systems which cannot realistically be replicated by hiring locally within the project timeframe.

The supporting evidence should be coherent: CV, diplomas and professional certifications, but also internal documentation that evidences the person’s role in practice (for example, descriptions of systems owned, modules delivered, internal recognition of expertise, or project responsibilities). Authorities are alert to “template” job descriptions that could describe almost anyone. A tailored role profile aligned to a defined project or operational need is much more credible.

It is also important that the skill level matches the proposed Swiss salary. If an employer claims “rare specialist expertise” but benchmarks salary at the lower end of the market, this internal inconsistency is a common reason cases unravel.

5. Swiss salary benchmarking: why it is central and how to approach it

Salary and working conditions must correspond to Swiss standards for the location, sector and role. This is not a superficial check. In many refusals, the underlying issue is not that the role is impossible to justify in principle, but that the Swiss authority is not satisfied that the remuneration package meets local norms.

Benchmarking should be approached as an evidence exercise rather than an assertion. The Swiss contract (or assignment letter) should state base salary, bonuses where applicable, allowances, and working hours clearly. Authorities will typically assess the overall package and compare it to customary pay for similar roles in the relevant canton or region and industry. Where the role is in a high-paying field such as banking, pharmaceuticals or certain technology specialisms, cantons can be particularly sensitive to under-benchmarking.

Problems commonly arise where multinational employers rely on home-country salary logic, apply internal global pay bands that do not reflect Swiss market conditions, or seek to keep Swiss salary low by paying allowances outside Swiss payroll. Even if the individual is willing to accept the terms, consent is not the test; the authority’s concern is the protection of Swiss labour standards and avoidance of wage dumping.

As a practical matter, employers should ensure that the proposed salary aligns with the seniority being claimed. If the role is framed as managerial or highly specialised, the compensation should reflect that. If the employer needs to control cost, it may be better to position the role more accurately and consider whether the assignment should be shorter, more tightly scoped, or designed differently (for example, with a different skill profile) rather than trying to force a “senior specialist” narrative with a mid-level salary.

6. L permit versus B permit outcomes in ICT scenarios

Intra-group assignments to Switzerland commonly result in either an L permit (short-term residence) or a B permit (residence) with work authorisation, depending principally on duration, the nature of the Swiss engagement, and the canton’s practice within the federal framework

An L permit outcome is more typical where the assignment is clearly time-limited and usually under a year, often linked to a defined project phase, rollout or interim cover. Authorities still expect the role to meet the “qualified worker” threshold and the salary benchmark, but the temporary framing can be easier to justify where the Swiss entity’s need is finite and where a longer-term labour market impact would be harder to defend. That said, an L permit should not be treated as a “lighter touch” option; weak specialist justification or salary issues can lead to refusal irrespective of duration.

A B permit outcome is more likely where the assignment is expected to run for a longer period, where the Swiss entity is effectively integrating the transferee into its ongoing organisational structure, or where the person will take on an enduring function in Switzerland. Because a B permit is associated with longer residence, the authorities may scrutinise whether the Swiss role is genuinely appropriate for a third-country national admission, and whether the employer has structured the engagement in a way that reflects Swiss employment realities.

In both cases, employers should be cautious about submitting a file that appears to be an open-ended relocation dressed up as an “assignment” without internal consistency. If the business intends a long-term move, it is usually better for the documentation to acknowledge that the role is ongoing and to build a case around the strategic need and the individual’s level, rather than relying on an artificial end-date that may later require repeated extensions.

7. Common refusal triggers and how employers can reduce risk

Refusals in Swiss intra-company transfer cases tend to follow predictable patterns. Salary misalignment is one of the most common triggers: remuneration is too low for the role, the hours or package do not match local standards, or the structure suggests an attempt to circumvent Swiss conditions. These issues are often avoidable with early Swiss market benchmarking and careful drafting of the Swiss employment documents.

A second frequent trigger is a weak specialist or seniority justification. Authorities will not accept generic statements about global mobility, “company policy”, or “important internal know-how” without a credible explanation of why the work must be performed in Switzerland by that individual. Cases also fail where the duties described are operationally junior, but the employer attempts to categorise them as “specialist” because the person is a valued employee.

A third trigger is inconsistency across the file. If the role title, duties, reporting line, duration, and salary do not align between the employer letter, the contract, the CV and the organisational chart, this undermines credibility and invites deeper scrutiny. Similarly, if the assignment rationale suggests a temporary project but the contract is open-ended, or if the project documentation suggests remote delivery but the application insists on on-site presence, the authority may conclude that the Swiss presence is not necessary.

Finally, employers should anticipate that the cantonal authority will want to understand the Swiss host entity’s capacity to employ and supervise the transferee and to comply with Swiss obligations. Sparse documentation about the Swiss company’s business activity, or a Swiss entity that appears to be a shell without real operations, can raise questions about the genuineness of the role.

Conclusion: getting the Swiss ICT case “right” is an evidence exercise

A successful Swiss intra-company transfer application is typically less about inventive legal argument and more about disciplined structuring and proof. The corporate group link must be clear, prior group employment should be properly documented, and the assignment rationale must explain in practical terms why Switzerland needs this individual in this role at this time. Above all, the proposed Swiss compensation and working conditions must be benchmarked to Swiss standards and must fit the seniority or specialist profile the employer is advancing.

Where employers prepare the file early, align the documentation, and treat salary benchmarking and role design as central rather than secondary issues, ICT cases are often manageable even in a restrictive third-country national environment. Where they do not, refusals tend to arise for reasons that are foreseeable and, in many cases, preventable.

Contact Our Immigration Lawyers In Switzerland

If you are planning an intra-company transfer to Switzerland and would like tailored advice on structuring the assignment, evidencing specialist or managerial status, and aligning the Swiss employment terms with cantonal and SEM expectations, our immigration lawyers can assist. To arrange an initial consultation meeting, contact Richmond Chambers Switzerland by telephone on +41 21 588 07 70 or complete an enquiry form.