Tag: Combined transactions

Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

Norway vs. ConocoPhillips, October 2016, Supreme Court HR-2016-988-A, Case No. 2015/1044)

A tax assessments based on anti-avoidance doctrine “gjennomskjæring” were set aside. The case dealt with the benefits of a multi-currency cash pool arrangement. The court held that the decisive question was whether the allocation of the benefits was done at arm’s length. The court dismissed the argument that the benefits should accure to the parent company as only common control between the parties which should be disregarded. The other circumstances regarding the actual transaction should be recognized when pricing the transaction. In order to achieve an arm’s length price, the comparison must take into account all characteristics of the controlled transaction except the parties’ association with each other. While the case was before the Supreme Court, the Oil Tax Board made a new amendment decision, which also included a tax assessment for 2002. This amendment, which was based on the same anti-avoidance considerations, was on its own to the company’s advantage. Following the Supreme Court judgment, a new amended decision was made in 2009, which reversed the anti-avoidance decision for all three years ... Continue to full case
Norway vs. Statoil Angola, 2007, Supreme Court, No. RT 2007-1025

Norway vs. Statoil Angola, 2007, Supreme Court, No. RT 2007-1025

Two inter-company loans were provided to Statoil Angola by it’s Norwegian parent company, Statoil Norway ASA, and a Belgian sister company, Statoil Belgium (SCC). Statoil Angola only had the financial capacity to borrow an amount equal to the loan from Statoil Belgium. Hence, no interest was paid on the loan from Statoil Norway. The tax authorities divided Statoil Angola’s borrowing capacity between the two loans and imputed interest payments on part of the loan from Statoil Norway in an assessment for the years 2000 and 2001. The Supreme Court, in a split 3/2 decision, found that Statoil’s allocation of the full borrowing capacity of Statoil Angola to the loan from the sister company in Belgium was based on commercial reasoning and in accordance with the arm’s length principle. The Court majority argued that Statoil Norway – unlike Statoil Belgium – had a 100% ownership of Statoil Angola, and the lack of interest income would therefore be compensated by an increased ... Continue to full case