Norwegian Tax Appeal Board rules that not all company benefits are taxable
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Local Insights

Norwegian Tax Appeal Board rules that not all company benefits are taxable

Sponsored by


Terje Bogaard of Deloitte Norway explains a decision by the Tax Appeal Board regarding tax liability for the acquisition of receivables between group companies at a discount

In a decision published on January 13 2023 (case SKNS1-2022-74), the Norwegian Tax Appeal Board concluded that a benefit was not taxable when the company in question had acquired a receivable from a group company at a discount to face value. The income was not considered taxable since there was not a sufficient close and immediate connection between the benefit and the company’s income-generating business activities.


The Norwegian taxpayer (a limited company) was part of a foreign group of companies and engaged in recruitment and consultancy services. Another group company had purchased an IT system from a third group company. The receivable that arose was first transferred to a fourth group company, which transferred it on to the taxpayer at a discounted price. The difference was accounted for as other financial income that increased the equity of the Norwegian company.

The taxpayer argued that the discount value did not reflect the risk or inability to pay on the part of the debtor, which was the group parent company. The purpose of the transfer was only to capitalise the taxpayer as the equity in the company had been lost. This method was said to be chosen for practical reasons, instead of a capital contribution, since the transferor was a sister company that did not hold shares in the Norwegian company.

The Tax Appeal Board decision

The case is an atypical one in which operating support/a capital contribution is given by allowing a group company to acquire an asset (receivable) at a discounted price. Each group company is a separate taxpayer and the basis for the Norwegian taxation is the actual form of the arrangement.

For an income to be taxable, there must be a benefit that has been caused by one of the sources of income mentioned in the Norwegian Tax Act, Section 5-1 (labour, capital, or business activities). The parties agreed that the discount value constituted a benefit and that the taxpayer conducted business activities. The disagreement concerned whether there was a sufficient close and immediate connection between the business activities and that income benefit.

The causation requirement implies that the benefit must have been caused by the income-generating business activities. In legal theory, a condition of a close and immediate connection between income and income-generating activities has been established. The benefit must be a close and immediate consequence of the features that characterise the sources of income obtained by the company in each case.

The Tax Appeal Board concluded that the sole purpose of transferring the receivable at a discounted value was to capitalise the Norwegian company. This transaction was enabled because of the community of interest in the group. The benefit did not have any connection to the company’s recruitment and consultancy business (neither the core of it nor a natural part of it). Therefore, the requirement that the benefit must be ‘caused by’ one of the above-mentioned sources of income was not met and the benefit was not considered taxable.

It was made clear that the decision of the case only applied to the benefit that arose due to the transfer at discounted value in the year of transfer and not the tax treatment of a later collection/realisation of the receivable.

In Deloitte Norway’s view, if the discounted value is not considered a benefit within the meaning of the Norwegian Tax Act, neither should a later realisation of the receivable constitute a new taxable benefit. Likely, such benefit would, in any case, be considered related to a simple receivable realised outside the taxpayer’s business, which is tax exempt under Norwegian tax law.

Key takeaways

The Tax Appeal Board decision shows that not all benefits a company enjoys are taxable business income. However, normally this should be the case. For a company engaged in commercial business activities, there is a low threshold for considering there to be a close and immediate connection between the benefit and the company’s income-generating business activities.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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
Fallet, a partner at law firm Mauger Muniz Advogados in Brazil, tells ITR about his passion for tax law, the leaders who inspired him, and what makes tax cool
The former chief operating officer will assume the role on July 1
Ahead of next week's Indirect Tax Forum in London, ITR spoke with Christian Van Der Valk of Sovos about how different governments and companies are embracing e-invoicing
Konrad Jeczewski has alleged he was threatened with negative reviews before being made redundant by EY Australia
The suggestion was welcomed by Skadden’s European tax head at a special event on space and tax
A majority of clients – particularly high-earning businesses – want advisers with demonstrable social credentials, according to a survey of more than 28,000 corporate counsel
The training comes at a ‘critical time’ in the fight against tax criminals; in other news, Spanish prosecutors have dropped a tax fraud case against Shakira
Gift this article