Norway: Herkules Capital wins carried interest tax dispute in the Norwegian Supreme Court

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: Herkules Capital wins carried interest tax dispute in the Norwegian Supreme Court

Saastad-Rolf
Li-Wensing

Rolf Saastad

Wensing Li

In a ruling from November 12 2015 (Herkules), the Norwegian Supreme Court stated that carried interest for tax purposes is to be treated as operational income in the general partner, rather than income of employment, which was the tax authorities' view. Hence, the tax authorities' view that the carried interest should be treated as personal income taxed at approximately 50% was overruled by the court. The court emphasised that the basis for an assessment of income classification and income allocation for tax purposes is primarily the agreements entered into by the taxpayers, to the extent they reflect the realities and are mutually binding.

Herkules is a private equity fund established under a Jersey LLP structure. The advisory services were provided to the fund by the key individuals through a management agreement with Herkules Capital, a Norwegian company of which those individuals were employed. Both Herkules Capital and the general partner of the fund were 60% indirectly owned by the key individuals through their holding companies, whereas 40% was owned by a private equity sponsor. All profits generated by the fund were split on a pre-agreed fixed basis, with up to 8% of invested capital being paid to ordinary investors and any excess profits being split 80/20 (carried interest) with the general partner.

Although the carried interest were treated as operational income for tax purposes in Herkules, it is unclear whether the classification as such applies to carried interest in general. The classification of carried interest as operational income in this case was agreed by the involved parties in advance of the court hearings. Hence, it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to address this question in particular.

Another important question left open is if there still may be room for argumentation that carried interest should be regarded as income of capital in certain cases where the level of involvement and/or risk-taking are different.

Rolf Saastad (rsaastad@deloitte.no) and Wensing Li (wensli@deloitte.no), Oslo

Deloitte|

Tel: +47 907 47 556 and +47 458 88 150

Website: www.deloitte.no

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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’
The landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment redefines GAAR, JAAR and treaty safeguards, rejects protections for indirect transfers and tightens conditions for Mauritius‑based investors claiming DTAA relief
The expansion introduces ‘business-level digital capabilities’ for tax professionals, the US tax agency said
As tax teams face pressure from complex rules and manual processes, adopting clear ownership, clean data and adaptable technology is essential, writes Russell Gammon, chief innovation officer at Tax Systems
Partners want to join Ryan because it’s a disruptor firm, truly global and less bureaucratic, Tom Shave told ITR
If Trump continues to poke the world’s ‘middle powers’ with a stick, he shouldn’t be surprised when they retaliate
Gift this article