Harmful Tax Practices – 2019 Peer Review Reports on the Exchange of Information on Tax Rulings

Norway

Norway has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2019 (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 issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:

• One past ruling;

• For the period 1 April 2016 - 31 December 2016: no future rulings;

• For the calendar year 2017: one future ruling,

• For the calendar year 2018: no future rulings, and

• For the year in review: no future rulings.

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

A. The information gathering process

792. Norway can legally issue the following three types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (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.

793. 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. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2016.

794. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Norway’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that Norway’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Norway’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

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

B. The exchange of information

796. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Norway’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further action was required. Norway’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

797. Norway has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a party to the (i) Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[4]) (“the Convention”), (ii) the Nordic Convention on Assistance in Tax Matters and (iii) bilateral agreements in force with 84 jurisdictions.2

798. For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:

 

Future rulings in the scope of the transparency framework	Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted	Delayed exchanges
		Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority	Reasons for the delays	Any other comments
	2	0	See below.	N/A

 

Follow up requests received for exchange of the ruling	Number	Average time to provide response	Number of requests not answered
	0	N/A	N/A

799. Norway notes that in late 2018, one future ruling was identified which was issued in February 2017. Details on the ruling, including the template for exchange, was sent to the Competent Authority in February 2019 and the ruling was exchanged in early March 2019. The ruling was identified based on a routine check by the Tax Directorate within the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Petroleum Taxation Office. Norway indicates that this was an isolated incident due to human error and that the Tax Directorate has conducted a follow up investigation of the issue. In addition, as a precautionary measure, the Tax Directorate has reiterated its instructions to the offices and will increase the frequency of its routine checks in the future. As this was a one-time issue, and information on the ruling has already been exchanged, no recommendation is made.

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

C. Statistics (ToR IV)

801. The statistics for the year in review are as follows:

 

Category of ruling	Number of exchanges	Jurisdictions exchanged with
Ruling related to a preferential regime	0	N/A
Cross-border unilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs) and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles	De minimis rule applies	N/A
Related party conduit rulings	0	N/A
De minimis rule	2	N/A
Total	2

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

802. Norway does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[1]) 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
Norway experienced some delays in exchanging information on one future ruling.	No recommendation is made because Norway completed exchanges on the delayed future ruling quickly after the issues were identified and resolved, and this is not a recurring issue.

References

[3] 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 Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.

[1] 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://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

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