Norway: Proposed interest limitation rules may impact inbound investments

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Norway: Proposed interest limitation rules may impact inbound investments

intl-updates-small.jpg
herde.jpg
johnsen.jpg

Daniel Herde

Trond Eivind Johnsen

The Norwegian Ministry of Finance (MoF) has proposed changes to the interest limitation rules applying to group companies, possibly limiting the interest deductions for MNEs' inbound investments in Norway.

The proposal is open to public consultation. Unless a de minimis threshold, or one of two group equity ratio tests, are met, the MoF proposes that deduction for all interest expenses that exceed 25% of "taxable EBITDA" should be denied.

While the current interest limitation rules only limit interest expenses on intragroup debt and certain guaranteed external debt, the proposed rules will affect all external debt in addition to intragroup debt. The new rules will apply to all group companies in Norway if the Norwegian part of the group has net interest expenses exceeding NOK 10 million ($1.2 million) (compared to a de minimis threshold of NOK 5 million per entity under the current rules).

Norwegian companies forming part of an MNE may, however, escape interest limitation if they meet one of two equity ratio tests:

1) If the equity ratio of the company in question is equal to or higher than the equity ratio of the consolidated group (i.e. the company is not thin-capitalised), that company is fully exempt from interest limitation; or

2) If the equity ratio of the Norwegian part of the group is equal to or higher than the equity ratio of the consolidated group, all Norwegian group companies and entities are fully exempt from interest limitation.

Determining the comparable equity ratios require certain amendments to the company's annual accounts or consolidated annual accounts for the Norwegian part of the group. This includes:

  • Ensuring that differences in accounting principles are properly adjusted for;

  • Attributing goodwill/badwill, etc. from the group annual accounts to the group company that created the value; and

  • Ensuring that equity and debt that flow through intragroup companies is only accounted for (once) in the company where the equity/debt is actually used to invest in capital goods.

As a result, one has to disregard shares in group companies and intragroup receivables (asset in the balance sheet) and reduce equity and debt respectively (equity and liabilities in the balance sheet).

The essence of the equity tests is that Norway will not allow a higher leverage on Norwegian investments compared to the leverage of the MNE as such, using the group leverage as an "arm's-length comparable". While the aim is to prevent the use of debt for cross-border profit shifting, the rules may have an adverse impact on largely equity funded MNEs interested in capital-intensive investments in Norway, as the banks may require local debt and the assets as pledge (e.g. property investments or infrastructure). Equally, MNEs acquiring highly leveraged ongoing businesses in Norway may soon be required to push debt out of Norway to avoid the limitations.

On the other hand, for MNEs having only one Norwegian group company, the proposed changes could be good news, as the proposal is to increase the de minimis threshold for applying the rules from NOK 5 million to NOK 10 million in net interest expenses.

Claiming exemption under the equity ratio tests will require substantive documentation and an increased compliance burden on MNEs. Additionally, the proposed rules will not accept group accounts prepared in any other accounting standard than NGAAP, EU/EEA GAAP or IFRS. Consequently, MNEs with consolidated accounts in other GAAPs (e.g. US GAAP) will not have access to the equity ratio exemptions unless they prepare additional consolidated group accounts under IFRS, NGAAP or GAAP in an EEA country.

The proposal, which raises several other technical and other issues, if adopted, is expected to enter into force for the 2018 income year.

Daniel Herde (dherde@deloitte.no) and Trond Eivind Johnsen (tjohnsen@deloitte.no)

Deloitte Norway

Tel: +47 482 21 973 and +47 901 94 496

Website: www.deloitte.no

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Governments are rewriting tax policy for the AI era, deploying digital taxes, tailored incentives and algorithmic enforcement that redefine where value is created
Wingrove will succeed Bill Thomas, who has served in the role since 2017; in other news, Andersen unveiled a sharp increase in revenues for 2025
Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
As GCCs increasingly become strategic hubs, multinationals face heightened risks around permanent establishment and place of effective management
While all options presented ‘drawbacks’, European Commission tax leader Wopke Hoekstra said the controversial US carve-out deal has ‘many benefits’
From tech preparations to competitiveness concerns, Tax Systems’ Russell Gammon addresses the most pressing client considerations arising from the SbS deal
Despite estimates that the US/OECD agreement will cost countries billions, the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan believes the deal is a ‘necessary evil’
The firm’s eye-catching UK launch is a major statement of intent, but it will face stern opposition in its quest to be the top global tax player
The postponement came after industry representatives flagged implementation issues with the registration regime; in other news, firms made key tax partner additions
Despite the increased yield, the time taken to resolve enquiries was at a six-year high, new HMRC statistics have revealed
Gift this article