Norway: Competent authority agreement entered into between Norway and the US

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: Competent authority agreement entered into between Norway and the US

ragna.jpg

Ragna Flækøy Skjåkødegård

In January 2013, Norway and the US entered into a competent authority agreement, clarifying in which cases fiscally transparent entities are entitled to benefits under the Convention between the US and Norway for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Property (the treaty). The treaty's Paragraph 1 (a)(ii) of Article 3, on fiscal residence, states that the term "resident of Norway" means a partnership, estate or trust only to the extent that the income derived by such person is subject to Norwegian tax as the income of a resident. The corresponding paragraph regarding the US, Paragraph 1 (b)(ii) of Article 3, states that the term "resident of the United States" means a partnership, estate or trust only to the extent that such income is subject to tax as the income of a resident.

The competent authority agreement states that when applying the above mentioned paragraphs of Article 3, income from sources within Norway or the US, received by an entity, wherever organised, that is treated as fiscally transparent under the laws of either Norway or the US, will be treated as income derived by a resident of the other contracting state to the extent that such income is subject to tax as the income of a resident of that other contracting state.

The agreement provides the following example: If a resident of the US is a partner in a partnership or a member of a limited liability company (LLC) organised in the US, and the entity is treated for US federal tax purposes as a partnership, the resident of the US would be entitled to benefits of the treaty on the income that the resident derives from Norway through the partnership to the extent of the US resident's distributive share of that income.

The agreement states that for an entity to be fiscally transparent, the income subject to tax in the hands of the resident must have the same source and character as if the income were received directly by the resident. It is not relevant for the application of the agreement whether the entity is fiscally transparent for tax purposes in the other contracting state, or in any third jurisdiction in which the entity is organised.

Ragna Flækøy Skjåkødegård (rskjakodegard@deloitte.no)

Deloitte, Oslo

Tel: +47 23 27 96 00

Website: www.deloitte.no

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Tax teams are responding to usual client demand in the region, albeit with increased working from home flexibility, local sources indicate
A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Digital tax reform is dissolving the old ‘temporal buffer’, forcing systems, institutions, and professionals to adapt as real-time reporting reshapes governance, capability, and compliance
Our first instalment features analysis of Deloitte’s landmark EMEA merger, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court tariff showdown and Venezuela’s tax evolution
While some believe it could have a positive effect on the wider advisory landscape, others argue that HMRC’s ‘red tape’ exercise won’t deter bad actors
The political optics of the US’s carve-out deal are poor, but as the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan writes, it preserves pillar two’s guiding ethos
The big four firm reportedly sent ‘threatening’ correspondence to Unity Advisory over its hiring of ex-PwC partners; plus tax recruitment news from the week
Tom Goldstein, who was represented by US law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, denied wilfully cheating on his taxes and blamed errors on his staff
Multinationals face rising TP scrutiny as global rules diverge. As Daniel Moalusi argues, strong, consistent documentation is now essential to minimise audit risk and protect tax positions
Gift this article