It cannot be assumed to. The requirement is one continuous year of qualifying employment with the organization abroad within the preceding three years, and a personal corporation invoicing for services describes a supplier relationship on its face. The substance can be examined, but it has to be explained rather than presumed.
Explain the arrangement instead of hoping it passes unnoticed
The instinct is to present the history in the simplest terms and hope the invoicing detail does not come up. That is the approach most likely to cause difficulty, because the payment records will show what they show. The better approach is to set the arrangement out openly and let counsel assess it: what agreement governed the engagement, who directed the work, whether there was any element of an employment relationship in substance, and what the corporate records say. Where the analysis is unfavourable, the practical options are to establish a period of genuine employment before filing, or to consider a different route. Both take time, which is another reason to look at this before the transfer is planned around a date.
Hypothetical example: Tessa directs an industrial-laundry group but spent four months on an unpaid sabbatical during the relevant period. An opening assessment plots every interval of foreign employment and asks whether the records show an uninterrupted qualifying year and a qualifying managerial, executive, or specialized-knowledge capacity. Payroll, leave approvals, contracts, and the organization chart are more useful than a title alone. Establish that answer before selecting a transfer date. The frequent error is treating long service with a group as enough while ignoring the particular time window and the nature of the work. Where the earlier duties were mainly hands-on production, a later promotion cannot retroactively make them managerial or executive, although they should still be assessed separately for qualifying specialized knowledge.