All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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 from across our site

But experts cast doubt on HMRC's data and believe COVID-19 would have increased the revenue shortfall.
EY’s plan to separate its auditing and consulting businesses might lessen scrutiny from global regulators, but the brand identity could suffer, say sources.
Multinationals are asking world leaders to put a scale on carbon pricing to tackle climate change at the 48th G7 summit in Germany, from June 26 to 28.
The state secretary told the French press that the country continues to oppose pillar two’s global minimum tax rate following an Ecofin meeting last week.
This week the Biden administration has run into opposition over a proposal for a federal gas tax holiday, while the European Parliament has approved a plan for an EU carbon border mechanism.
12th annual awards announce winners
Businesses need to improve on data management to ensure tax departments become much more integrated, according to Microsoft’s chief digital officer at a KPMG event.
Businesses must ensure any alternative benchmark rate is included in their TP studies and approved by tax authorities, as Libor for the US ends in exactly a year.
Tax directors warn that a lack of adequate planning for VAT rule changes could leave businesses exposed to regulatory errors and costly fines.
Tax professionals have urged suppliers of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to pause any plans to restructure their supply chains following the NI Protocol Bill.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree