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

There is a shocking discrepancy between professional services firms’ parental leave packages. Those that fail to get with the times risk losing out in the war for talent
Winston Taylor is expected to launch in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers across the US, UK, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East
They are alleging that leaked tax information ‘unfairly tarnished’ their business operations; in other news, Davis Polk and Eversheds Sutherland made key tax hires
Overall revenues for the combined UK and Swiss firm inched up 2% to £3.6 billion despite a ‘challenging market’
In the first of a two-part series, experts from Khaitan & Co dissect a highly anticipated Indian Supreme Court ruling that marks a decisive shift in India’s international tax jurisprudence
The OECD profile signals Brazil is no longer a jurisdiction where TP can be treated as a mechanical compliance exercise, one expert suggests, though another highlights 'significant concerns'
Libya’s often-overlooked stamp duty can halt payments and freeze contracts, making this quiet tax a decisive hurdle for foreign investors to clear, writes Salaheddin El Busefi
Eugena Cerny shares hard-earned lessons from tax automation projects and explains how to navigate internal roadblocks and miscommunications
The Clifford Chance and Hyatt cases collectively confirm a fundamental principle of international tax law: permanent establishment is a concept based on physical and territorial presence
Australian government minister Andrew Leigh reflects on the fallout of the scandal three years on and looks ahead to regulatory changes
Gift this article