Norwegian ruling on permanent establishment for construction and installation projects
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

Norwegian ruling on permanent establishment for construction and installation projects

Sponsored by

Ship building

Jenny Bondevik and Lene Bergersen of Deloitte Norway explain a decision by the Norwegian Tax Appeal Board that clarifies how construction and installation activities are assessed for tax liability purposes

In a decision published on August 24 2023 (case SKNS1-2023-54), the Norwegian Tax Appeal Board considered a company’s tax liability under the tax treaty between Norway and Germany, with particular reference to Article 5 No. 3 regarding permanent establishment. As work performed in Norway on four ships was considered one joint assignment that exceeded 12 months, the Tax Appeal Board concluded that the activity constituted a permanent establishment in Norway under the tax treaty.


The taxpayer (a German company) installed ship equipment on four Norwegian ships owned by company B. The installation work was to take place from 2019 to 2023 at a Norwegian shipyard. The equipment was to be installed on one ship at a time, and the work on one ship was to be completed before the work on the next ship began. Settlement would be paid after each partial delivery.

The installations were to take place for a limited period, which would imply several short periods of stay and activity in Norway. The work on the first ship took place over a period of just under six months. In 2019, the company spent 34 days in Norway spread over 14 periods. The work on the second ship resulted in 11 days of activity in Norway, with a planned completion within a 12-month period.

The Norwegian Tax Appeal Board’s judgment

The company was liable to tax in Norway under the domestic rules (see the Norwegian Tax Act, Section 2-3, first paragraph, letter b).

The main question was whether the tax treaty between Norway and Germany prevented Norwegian taxation as there was no permanent establishment in Norway (see Article 7 in the tax treaty; also Article 5). It was uncontested that the situation was regulated by Article 7 where qualifying construction and installation projects constitute a permanent establishment when the work lasts for more than 12 months (see Article 5 No. 3).

The first question the Tax Appeal Board had to assess when considering if there was a permanent establishment was whether the installation work on the four ships should be considered as one joint or more separate assignments.

The work was regulated in a contract and the Tax Appeal Board concluded that there was a commercial and geographical unit between installations (partial deliveries), which indicated that the work should be considered as one assignment. It was underlined that the work was carried out at the same place, that the work was for the same client, and that the work had the same or approximately the same content, even if it was carried out on different ships. The fact that the agreement was divided into partial deliveries did not change the assessment.

The next question in these types of cases is how the months should be counted under the permanent establishment rule for construction and installation work. The Tax Appeal Board referred to the tax office’s decision regarding this question. The company had stated that it had only been present in Norway for a few days and that there were periods when the company was not present, which implied that the periods when the company was not in Norway were to be excluded from the counting of the 12-month requirement. This was rejected with reference to the OECD comments to include temporary cessation of work and work stoppage due to weather conditions, material conditions, or other factors when counting the construction time. This meant that the time between installations also had to be included.

Since the installation work was planned, and agreed, to be carried out over several years, it was clear that the 12-month requirement was met. Consequently, the Tax Appeal Board concluded that the company had a permanent establishment in Norway and thus was liable to tax on its activities.

Key takeaway

The Tax Appeal Board decision shows that once there is a strong connection between deliveries, it is challenging to argue that “the work is completed or permanently abandoned”, which can stop the counting of the 12-month period, according to the OECD comments.

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