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 across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Dutch TP decree marks a turn in the Netherlands as the country aligns its tax policies with OECD standards over claims it is a tax haven.
Gorka Echevarria talks to reporter Siqalane Taho about how inflation, e-invoicing and technology are affecting the laser printing firm in a post-COVID world.
Tax directors have called on companies to better secure their data as they generate ever-increasing amounts of information due to greater government scrutiny.
Incoming amendments to the treaty could increase costs on non-resident Indian service providers.
Experts say the proposed minimum tax does not align with the OECD’s pillar two regime and risks other countries pulling out.
The Malawian government has targeted US gemstone miner Columbia Gem House, while Amgen has successfully consolidated two separate tax disputes with the Internal Revenue Service.
ITR's latest quarterly PDF is now live, leading on the rise of tax technology.
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted firms, teams, and practitioners for the 2022 Americas Tax Awards – winners to be announced on September 22
‘Care’ is the operative word as HMRC seeks to clamp down on transfer pricing breaches next year.
Tax directors tell ITR that the CRA’s clampdown on unpaid taxes on insurance premiums is causing uncertainty for businesses as they try to stay compliant.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree