Norway

Norway has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2017[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2018 (year in review) and no recommendations are made.

In the prior year report, Norway did not receive any recommendations.

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, and

• For the year in review: no future rulings.

As no exchanges were required to take place, no peer input was received in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Norway.

Introduction

This peer review covers Norway’s implementation of the BEPS Action 5 transparency framework for the year 2018. 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

Norway can legally issue the three following types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) rulings related to a 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.

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

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.

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Norway’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Norway’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)

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

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Norway’s undertakings to identify future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Norway’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Review and supervision (ToR I.4.3)

In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Norway’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Norway’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.

Conclusion on section A

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)

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.

Norway has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including being a party to the (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)

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

As Norway did not issue any future rulings in scope of the transparency framework in the relevant period, Norway was not required to exchange any information on rulings in the year in review and no data on the timeliness of exchanges can be reported.

Conclusion on section B

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)

As there was no information on rulings 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)

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

Notes

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

← 2. Parties to the Convention are available here: http://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, Iceland and Sweden. 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, Curaçao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saba, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Saint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, 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.