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

In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board is set to kick off 2026 with a new secretary to head the administrative side of its regulatory activities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance reported increased income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts from 2024; in other news, it’s understood that HSBC has agreed to pay the French treasury to settle a tax investigation
The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
Gift this article