Bulgaria: Double tax treaty between Bulgaria and Norway

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


Bulgaria: Double tax treaty between Bulgaria and Norway

varbanov.jpg

Petar Varbanov

On July 8 2015, the Bulgarian Parliament ratified the convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with the Kingdom of Norway. The convention will apply to persons who are residents of one or both of the contracting states and to any substantially similar taxes that are imposed after the date of signature of the convention in addition to, or in place of, the existing taxes. The existing taxes to which the convention will apply are taxes on income, municipal tax on income, tax relating to submarine petroleum income, pipeline transport of petroleum, national tax on remuneration to non-resident artistes, corporate income tax and patent tax.

Taxation of income

Income derived by a resident of a contracting state from immovable property (including income from agriculture or forestry) situated in the other contracting state may be taxed in that other state. Also, business profits of an enterprise of a contracting state will be taxable only in that state unless the enterprise carries on business in the other contracting state through a permanent establishment (PE) situated therein. Profits of an enterprise of a contracting state from the operation of ships, aircraft, and railway or road transport vehicles in international transport shall be taxable only in that state.

Withholding taxes

According to the convention, dividends shall be taxed with 5% of the gross amount of the dividends if the beneficial owner is a company (other than a partnership) which holds directly at least 10% of the capital of the company paying the dividends. A tax rate of 15% of the gross amount of the dividends will be applicable in all other cases. Interest arising in a contracting state and paid to a resident of the other contracting state may be taxed in that other state. Such interest may also be taxed in the state in which it arises and according to the laws of that state, but if the beneficial owner of the interest is a resident of the other state, the tax charged will not exceed 5%. Royalty withholding tax charges will not exceed 5% of the gross amount of the royalties paid.

The convention will enter into force on the date of a ratification notification by Norway, which is now pending.

Petar Varbanov (petar.varbanov@eurofast.eu)

Eurofast

Tel: +359 2 988 69 75

Website: www.eurofast.eu

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It was also a memorable night for Galicia, KPMG, Skadden and Pinheiro Neto, all of which scooped major awards at a gala ceremony in New York
The former Deloitte UK CEO earned a 45% raise in a year when 1,000 staff reportedly lost their jobs – and the pay gap is only getting bigger
In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Both Germany’s NIS2 and the EU AI Act now determine whether a tax function can meet its obligations – and both can make management personally accountable
Originators, loan purchasers and securitisation vehicles may need to revisit servicing agreements and pricing after a key judgment narrowed the VAT credit management exemption
Opening doors for existing talent within Baker McKenzie and a desire for enhanced legal capabilities informed Ricardo Perera’s switch from KPMG
Boaz Goren’s move to the upstart PE-backed firm takes the number of senior UK tax professionals who have left EY this year to 13
The allegations against Deloitte Cyprus raise uncomfortable questions about how far the big four can distance themselves from misconduct at member firms
Gift this article