Norway: Competent authority agreement entered into between Norway and the US

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Norway: Competent authority agreement entered into between Norway and the US

ragna.jpg

Ragna Flækøy Skjåkødegård

In January 2013, Norway and the US entered into a competent authority agreement, clarifying in which cases fiscally transparent entities are entitled to benefits under the Convention between the US and Norway for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Property (the treaty). The treaty's Paragraph 1 (a)(ii) of Article 3, on fiscal residence, states that the term "resident of Norway" means a partnership, estate or trust only to the extent that the income derived by such person is subject to Norwegian tax as the income of a resident. The corresponding paragraph regarding the US, Paragraph 1 (b)(ii) of Article 3, states that the term "resident of the United States" means a partnership, estate or trust only to the extent that such income is subject to tax as the income of a resident.

The competent authority agreement states that when applying the above mentioned paragraphs of Article 3, income from sources within Norway or the US, received by an entity, wherever organised, that is treated as fiscally transparent under the laws of either Norway or the US, will be treated as income derived by a resident of the other contracting state to the extent that such income is subject to tax as the income of a resident of that other contracting state.

The agreement provides the following example: If a resident of the US is a partner in a partnership or a member of a limited liability company (LLC) organised in the US, and the entity is treated for US federal tax purposes as a partnership, the resident of the US would be entitled to benefits of the treaty on the income that the resident derives from Norway through the partnership to the extent of the US resident's distributive share of that income.

The agreement states that for an entity to be fiscally transparent, the income subject to tax in the hands of the resident must have the same source and character as if the income were received directly by the resident. It is not relevant for the application of the agreement whether the entity is fiscally transparent for tax purposes in the other contracting state, or in any third jurisdiction in which the entity is organised.

Ragna Flækøy Skjåkødegård (rskjakodegard@deloitte.no)

Deloitte, Oslo

Tel: +47 23 27 96 00

Website: www.deloitte.no

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

With PMK 108, Indonesia has upgraded its tax transparency regime for the digital era, focusing on data quality, governance, and cross border exchange rather than expanding regulatory reach
In a popular LinkedIn post, Jeremie Beitel encouraged firms to invest in junior talent even if it doesn’t lead to their loyalty, though recruiters offered ITR a mixed assessment
Advisers who do not register for the new regime in time could be prevented from interacting with HMRC, the tax authority said
Valid pillar two objectives are still intact after the side-by-side agreement, but whether the framework is now settled is ‘a $64,000 question’, Morrison Foerster’s tax chair told ITR
Ian Halligan previously led Baker Tilly’s international tax services in the US
Exclusive ITR data emphasises that DEI does not affect in-house buying decisions – and it’s nothing to do with the US president
The firms made senior hires in Los Angeles and Cleveland respectively; in other news, South Korea reported an 11% rise in tax income, fuelled by a corporation tax boom
The ‘deeply flawed’ report is attempting to derail UN tax convention debates, the Tax Justice Network’s CEO said
Salim Rahim, a TP specialist, had been a partner at Baker McKenzie since 2010
While the manual should be consulted for any questions around MAPs, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also emphasised that the guidance is ‘not a political commitment’
Gift this article