Norway: Impact of withholding tax decision for US regulated investment companies

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Norway: Impact of withholding tax decision for US regulated investment companies

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
US RICs are subject to 25% withholding tax on dividends received from Norwegian limited companies

Daniel Herde of Deloitte Norway explains the potential implications a new decision from the Norwegian Tax Appeal Board for withholding tax on dividends to US regulated investment companies in Norway.

US regulated investment companies (RICs) are as a starting point subject to 25% withholding tax on dividends received from Norwegian limited companies.

In a short period, US RICs were granted a refund of 10% of the withholding tax pursuant to the US–Norway tax treaty. The tax authorities later reconsidered this position based on an interpretive statement from the Ministry of Finance (MoF). 

A new decision from the Tax Appeal Board disregarded the reasoning in MoF’s statement, but refused the US RIC’s refund claim on another basis.

Reasoning in the decision from the Tax Appeal Board

A US RIC may qualify for reduced withholding tax under the US–Norway tax treaty if: 

  • It is a US corporation or treated as a US corporation for tax purposes;

  • It is regarded as the beneficial owner of the dividends; and

  • Article 20 of the tax treaty is not applicable. 

The US RIC had provided a Form 6166 demonstrating that the first condition was met. Even though the US Norway tax treaty does not a have a beneficial owner requirement, the Norwegian view is that this condition can be interpreted in older tax treaties without a beneficial owner requirement. 

In the MoF statement, the MoF concluded that US RICs cannot be the beneficial owner of the dividends received, partly because there is an obligation to redistribute the dividends and partly because it is the investors that are taxed for the income received. The second reason could imply that the MoF did regard the US RICs as being tax transparent. 

The Tax Appeal Board stated that the MoF’s reason for disregarding the US RIC as the beneficial owner was incorrect, as a US RIC would become taxable for the part of its taxable income that is not distributed to its investors. 

Newer commentaries to the OECD Model Tax Convention (2014) made a distinction between an obligation to redistribute an investment fund’s profits (a common feature for distributing investment funds) and an obligation to redistribute received dividends. 

The latter obligation would not meet the beneficial ownership requirement, but the former obligation could meet the requirement. The Tax Appeal Board pointed to that Norway had not objected to the new commentaries, and therefore implicitly had accepted the distinction.

Since the US RIC did not have an obligation to distribute the received dividends but had a discretionary competence to determine the distribution to its owners, the US RIC fulfilled the beneficial ownership requirement.

The third question before the Tax Appeal Board was whether the limitation of benefits provision in the tax treaty limited the treaty benefits of the US RIC.

The US–Norway tax treaty has an older version of a limitation of benefits provision in Article 20, limiting tax treaty protection for US companies that for certain types of income/gains are:

  • Subject to a tax that is substantially less than the tax normally imposed on corporate income; and

  • 25% or more of the company is owned, directly or indirectly, by persons who are not individuals resident in the US. 

The Tax Appeal Board concluded that both requirements were met, so that the US RIC failed the last of the three abovementioned requirements for obtaining treaty protection. 

Good news for US RICs with private American investors

For US RICs that have only American investors or only a few foreign investors, the abovementioned decision is good news.

It is expected that the tax office will follow this decision in other cases, but it cannot be guaranteed. US RICs that fulfil the conditions above may file a refund application going five years back.

 

Daniel Herde

Partner, Deloitte

E: dherde@deloitte.no

 

 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s data has highlighted the US firm’s ambition to become America’s ‘premier’ tax player via a concerted partner recruitment strategy
Jaap Zwaan’s arrival continues a recent streak of A&M Tax investing in the region; in other news, the US and Japan struck a deal that significantly lowered tariff rates
In a world where international tax concepts rely on human activity, Leonard Wagenaar poses existential questions about the future of such ideas when AI is ever-present
France v Axa provides a practical illustration of how the burden of proof is applied in TP matters under French law, ITR also heard
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
Gift this article