Norway: Competent authority agreement entered into between Norway and the US
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Proposals by HM Revenue and Customs to raise standards in the advisory market are ‘well overdue’, one partner declared
An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
‘Auditors are failing to perform their core function’ according to a think tank; in other news, White & Case adds a tax partner in Luxembourg
An overhaul of EU import taxes could spell the end of an exemption for cheap parcels
Sharma, managing director for A&M in the United Arab Emirates, tells ITR about intense time pressures, mimicking Jurgen Klopp and what makes tax cool
AI will speed up some of the most laborious TP processes without making human input redundant, argues Hank Moonen, CEO of TaxModel
Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Australian businessman Gordon Merchant used EY’s advice to offset an A$85 million capital gain, according to the Federal Court
Griggs has been drafted in ahead of schedule as the incumbent Tim Ryan departs for Citigroup; while the Netherlands plans to scrap a 15% share buyback tax
Authorities must ensure that Russian firms do not use transfer pricing schemes to increase profits made from oil sold in different markets, advocacy organisations have argued
Gift this article