More the opposite. Corporations are granted charters (and limited-liability) by governments because they are extensions of governments. They're either meant to
1) take risks to accomplish goals that would be beneficial to government, but that government does not want to risk itself, [e.g. if there were no grocery stores, government would have to feed you, but government doesn't have the information to choose locations and stock stores effectively, which competition provides]
2) allow the government to do things that government isn't allowed to do directly [e.g. censor content, cut off undesirables from financial services, pay lower than their current government union contracts or legislation], or to
3) aid the transfer of wealth from government to insiders through either government overpayment for services it could more cheaply provide itself, or by having looser labor/materials sourcing/pollution regulation or monitoring than government does, providing self-dealers a margin built from externalities.
A city files a charter with the state to be recognized as a city. A business files a charter with the same state (not a city) to be recognized as a business. It's like instantiating the same base class, but extending each one with specific properties that identify them as different objects.
Whether it is A->B or B->A doesn't really matter. It's all a method of operating as a defined entity to the state with minor differences. It would not be hard to define something like Apple with it's corporate campus as a city. That would blur the lines pretty significantly. They could create an actual Apple Police. I'm guessing that would do some heads in.
