Harmful Tax Practices – 2017 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

Norway

Norway has met all aspects of the terms of reference (ToR) for the calendar year 2017 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.

Norway can legally issue three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

In practice, Norway has issued one past ruling; for the period 1 April 2016 - 31 December 2016; and for the year in review, Norway issued no future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

No peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Norway.

Introduction

952.  This peer review covers Norway’s implementation of the BEPS Action 5 transparency framework for the year 2017. The report has four parts, each relating to a key part of the ToR. Each part is discussed in turn. A summary of recommendations is included at the end of this report.

A. The information gathering process

953.  Norway can legally issue the three following types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) rulings related to preferential regimes1; (ii) cross-border unilateral advance pricing arrangements (APAs) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles in relation to realisation of natural gas for companies liable to tax under the Petroleum Tax Act; and (iii) related party conduit rulings. In Norway, the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprise issues rulings on the preferential regime and unilateral APAs in relation to petroleum tax are issued by the Petroleum Taxation Office. The Norwegian Directorate of Taxes can also issue rulings involving complex tax questions, tax matters of interest to the broader public and principle tax matters.

Past rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1, I.4.2.2)

954.  For Norway, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014.

955.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the Norwegian tax administration’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Norwegian tax administration’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Future rulings (ToR I.4.1.1, I.4.1.2, I.4.2.1)

956.  For Norway, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.

957.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the Norwegian tax administration’s implementation of a new system to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Norwegian tax administration’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Review and supervision mechanism (ToR I.4.3)

958.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the Norwegian tax administration’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Norwegian tax administration’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

959.  Norway has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.

B. The exchange of information

Legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information (ToR II.5.1, II.5.2)

960.  Norway has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Norway notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.

961.  Norway is a party to international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011) (“the Convention”), (ii) the Nordic Convention on Assistance in Tax Matters and (iii) double tax agreements in force with 84 jurisdictions.2

Completion and exchange of templates (ToR II.5.3, II.5.4, II.5.5, II.5.6, II.5.7)

962.  In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that the Norwegian tax administration’s completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Norwegian tax administration’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

963.  With respect to the completion of the summary section of the template, Norway confirms that it uses the suggested FHTP internal guidance.

964.  For the year in review, no past rulings had to be exchanged with new members of the Inclusive Framework that joined in 2017 and as such no additional exchanges on past rulings were required. In addition, no rulings within the scope of the transparency framework have been issued in the year of review. Therefore, Norway was not required to complete any exchanges of information and there is no data to report on the timeliness of exchanges

Conclusion on section B

965.  Norway has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges on time. Norway has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

966.  As there were no rulings required to be exchanged by Norway for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

D. Matters related to intellectual property regimes (ToR I.4.1.3)

967.  Norway does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015) were imposed.

Summary of recommendations on implementation of the transparency framework

 

Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved	Recommendation for improvement
	No recommendations are made.

References

OECD (2017), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices – Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparencyframework.pdf.

OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.

Notes

← 1.  With respect to the following preferential regimes: 1) International shipping regime.

← 2.  Parties to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Parties to the Nordic Convention on Assistance in Tax Matters are Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway. Norway also has bilateral agreements in force with Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bonaire, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Curacao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saba, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Saint. Eustatius, Sint Maarten, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union. The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.