Norwegian Court of Appeals: carried interest taxable as employment income

Estimated reading time 4 minutes

In a landmark judgement, the Norwegian Court of Appeals has ruled that carried interest profit share that can be linked to services provided by employees should treated as taxable income for those employees. The Herkules case concerned a private equity fund established under a Jersey LLP structure.  The services of key individuals were provided to the fund through a management agreement with Herkules Capital, a Norwegian company which employed those individuals.  Both Herkules Capital and the General Partner of the fund were owned 60% by personal companies owned by those key individuals and 40% by the private equity sponsor.  All profits generated by the fund were split on a fixed basis, with up to 8% of invested capital being paid to ordinary investors and any excess profits being split 80/20 with the General Partner (the ‘carried interest’). Even though the General Partner provided little or no services to the fund, the Court considered the strong links between the ownership of the General Partner and the working obligations of the key employees, and the fact that the carried interest arrangement was clearly intended as an incentivisation tool.  Therefore, the Court ruled that the portion of the carried interest received by the employees’ personal companies should be treated as employment income for the employees and taxed accordingly.  Herkules Capital was also held liable for employer’s social security contributions on the same amount.  In addition, the Court imposed penalty tax and a penalty contribution of 30% and the taxpayers (the employees involved and Herkules Capital) were required to pay the State’s legal costs. It is worth noting that the Court disregarded the meticulously structured agreements and legal arrangements, under which no part of the income was actually received by Herkules Capital or the key employees.  By taking a high level view about the ultimate intended recipients of the income, the judgement breaks new ground in the “substance over form principle”.  Essentially, the Court took the view that the taxable income should be allocated to the parties that are viewed as having provided the work or service for which the amounts were paid. We expect the judgement to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Resources

Ruling 2015-01-28. LB-2014-048039

Further information

For further information or to discuss any of the issues raised, please contact Espen Nordbø on +47 489 90 055 at www.haarvind.no. Disclaimer Content is for general information purposes only.  The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice.  If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances.  In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this article.  For further legal information see our legal page. Circular 230 disclosure To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this article (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Copying If you would like to copy or otherwise reproduce this article then you may do so provided that: (1) any such copy or reproduction is for your own personal use or if it is made available to any third party it is done so on a free of charge basis; and (2) the article is reproduced in full together with the contact details, disclaimer and any logos as they appear on each article.