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

Long-running, high-value and complex enquiries are a significant reason for HM Revenue and Customs’s increased TP yield, experts suggest
Landmark legal updates in India have led companies to prioritise specialised tax advisers over accountants, ITR has found
Brazil’s shift to a nationwide consumption tax is more than conceptual; it fundamentally transforms municipal revenue, enforcement, and administrative disputes
While some advisers praised the ruling’s definition of a ‘voucher’ for VAT purposes, a UK partner said the case left unanswered questions
While pillar two has been enacted on paper in Brazil, companies are encountering a range of practical compliance issues, ITR has heard
Moore, founding partner of the Chicago tax boutique which bears her name, shares her career wisdom for ITR’s new Women in Tax interview series
But partners at the firm admit that jumping ship to the US would not be as easy as some believe
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
Gift this article