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

An insight into Norwegian Tax Appeal Board rulings

Sponsored by Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
The Norwegian Tax Appeal Board rendered 70 decisions in 2020

Adrian Dobloug Høidahl of Deloitte Norway focuses on selected rulings from the Norwegian Tax Appeal Board from 2020.

The Norwegian Tax Appeal Board is the appeal body for most of the decisions made by the tax office. In 2020, the Tax Appeal Board rendered 70 decisions. 

The first decision addressed in the article is on the taxation of cryptocurrency. In the second decision, retroactive group contributions were considered between two merged companies. The third and fourth decisions deal with the classification of proceeds from shares, as either dividends or paid-in capital.

Treatment of bitcoins for capital gains tax and wealth tax purposes 

In the case from December 16 2020 (NS 158/2020), an individual had acquired and sold Bitcoins over several years. The first question before the Tax Appeal Board was whether Bitcoins could be considered part of the taxpayer’s property used in the residence or household of the owner or his family, which is exempt from capital gains taxation. 

The taxpayer argued that since the Bitcoins had been mined in Bitcoins early phases, with the mining activity as a hobby, the conditions for the exemption were met. The Tax Appeal Board referred to the tax office decision, stating that Bitcoins are a means of payment and not a household item, thereby subject to capital gains taxation. 

The second question was whether Bitcoins was an asset for wealth tax purposes, and if so, how it should be valued. The taxpayer argued that there were several uncertainties concerning the economic value of the currency, and that the sources used for valuation purposes by the tax office were unreliable. 

The Tax Appeal Board concluded that Bitcoin was an asset for wealth tax purposes, and that the tax office’s valuation, using an average rate from several internet sites and exchanges, was defendable and in line with the law. 

Retroactive group contributions 

In the case from October 15 2020 (NS 128/2020), a company had sold two real estate options with taxable gains and distributed the remaining profits to its three shareholders. Following the distribution, one of the three shareholders acquired the other shareholder’s shares, making the acquiror the sole shareholder. 

The question before the Tax Appeal Board was whether the gain from the sale of the options could be neutralised by the new sole shareholder through a retroactive group contribution, the Norwegian way of tax consolidation.  

The Tax Appeal Board stated that the corporate requirements for retroactive group contribution was not possible to fulfill, as the two companies were merged at the time of the group contribution request. A group contribution has to be rendered between the companies that wants to tax consolidate, which is not possible if the two companies have amalgamated. The Tax Office’s decision was therefore upheld. 

Classification as dividend or paid-in capital

In the decision from October 15 2020 (NS 129/2020), a company had received dividends from three subsidiaries, all of which were sold before the end of the fiscal year. The question before the Tax Appeal Board was whether the company could choose to treat the dividends as repayment of paid-in capital (fully exempt from tax) or whether the company was subject to tax on 3% of the distributions.

The Tax Appeal Board agreed with the taxpayer that shareholders, as a point of departure, are entitled to classify a distribution as repayment of paid-in capital or a dividend for tax purposes, and that the shareholder normally can decide the classification when submitting the tax return.

However, when shares were sold in the middle of the income year, the Tax Appeal Board stated that the seller would lose its right to classify previous distributions that year as repayment of capital, unless otherwise specifically agreed with the buyer. Furthermore, as the shareholder had not actively classified the distribution as repayment of paid-in capital, the distribution would then follow the corporate law treatment and thus be classified as a dividend. 

In the decision from May 19 2020 (NS 73/2020), a fully-owned company had acquired own shares from its sole shareholder. In the tax returns the shareholder had treated the transaction as a sale of shares, with a marginal capital gain. 

However, because the transaction did not affect the shareholders ownership in the company, the sale should, as a starting point, have been treated as a dividend distribution in accordance with existing administrative practice. The question before the Tax Appeal Board was whether parts of the dividend could be classified as repayment of paid-in capital which is tax-exempt.

The Tax Appeal Board looked at the history of the shares in the company and was able to trace a large part of the distribution back to previous paid in capital for tax purposes, even though there had been several emissions, share splits, etc.

The partial reclassification from taxable dividends to tax-exempt repayment of paid-in capital was initiated by the Tax Appeal Board (without being invoked by the taxpayer), and reduced the taxable income for the taxpayer significantly. This is a good example of the Tax Appeal Board giving the taxpayer a helping hand.  

 

Adrian Dobloug Høidahl

Lawyer, Deloitte Norway

E: adhoidahl@deloitte.no

 

More from across our site

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.
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.
Tax leaders say communication with peers is important for risk management, especially on how to approach regional authorities.
Advances in compliance tools in international markets and the digitalisation of global tax administrations are increasing in-house demand for technologists.
The US fast-food company has agreed to pay €1.25 billion to settle the French investigation into its transfer pricing arrangements over allegations of tax evasion.
HM Revenue and Customs said the UK pillar two legislation will be delayed until at least December 2023, while ITR reported on a secret Netflix settlement and an IMF study on VAT cuts.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree