Virkninger Av Lovmessige Begrensninger for Statsforetak
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Del 1 – Hovedblankett
Samordnet registermelding Del 1 – Hovedblankett for registrering i Enhetsregisteret, Foretaksregisteret, Merverdiavgiftsregisteret, NAV Aa-registeret, SSBs Bedrifts- og foretaksregister, Stiftelsesregisteret og Skattedirektoratets register over upersonlige skattytere 1. Navn/foretaksnavn 1.1 Enhetens fullstendige navn/foretaksnavn (fylles alltid ut) Organisasjonsnummer: ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı 1.2 Eventuelt nytt navn/foretaksnavn. For enheter registrert i Foretaksregisteret er navne-/foretaksnavneendringen gebyrbelagt 1.3 Eget navn på virksomheten (oppgis bare hvis selve virksomheten drives under et annet navn enn enhetens fullstendige navn/foretaksnavn) 2. Meldingen gjelder 2.1 Enhet som ikke er registrert tidligere 2.3 Beslutning om (enhet som ikke har eget organisasjonsnummer) oppløsning av enhet Ved kjøp, salg eller nedleggelse > av virksomhet må felt 9 og 10 2.2 Endringer/nye opplysninger 2.4 Sletting av enhet fylles ut. (fyll bare ut de felt endringen gjelder) 3. Registrering i andre registre (i tillegg til registrering i Enhetsregisteret) 3.1 Skal enheten registreres i Foretaksregisteret? Nei Ja > Se veiledningen om registrerings- Det er gebyr på registreringen. rett/-plikt i Foretaksregisteret. 3.2 Har virksomheten omsetning som kommer inn under Nei Ja > Hvis ja, sender du inn blankettens merverdiavgiftslovens bestemmelser? del 2 når beløpsgrensen er nådd. Se egen veiledning for del 2. 3.3 Enheten - har eller venter å få arbeidstakere Nei Ja - betaler/skal betale andre enn arbeidstakere Nei Ja vederlag som det skal betales arbeidsgiveravgift > Hvis ja, får du nærmere informasjon av etter folketrygdloven § 23-2 tilsendt. 3.4 Har eller venter enheten å få virksomhet på flere adresser? Nei Ja 4. Hovedkontorets adresse (forretningsadresse/besøksadresse) Gate, husnummer eller sted Postnummer Poststed Kommune Land Telefonnummer Telefaksnummer Mobiltelefonnummer Hjemmeside 5. -
Doing Business in Norway
Doing Business in Norway 2020 Edition 1 Norway • Hammerfest • Tromsø 5.4 million Population • 119th most populous country on earth Constitutional monarchy Form of government • Constitution day: 17 May • Head of State: King Harald V • Prime Minister: Erna Solberg, conservative • Member of the EEA from 1 January 1994 • Member of the EU: No Oslo Capital of Norway • 5 regions • Highest mountain: Galdhøpiggen 2,469 m. • Largest lake: Mjøsa 365 sq.m. • The distance from Oslo to Hammerfest is as far as from Oslo to Athens Gross domestic product ca. NOK 3300 billion Economy • Trondheim • Currency: Krone (NOK) • GDP per capita: ca. NOK 615,000 • The largest source of income is the extraction and export of subsea oil and natural gas • Bergen Norway • Oslo • Stavanger ISBN2 978-82-93788-00-3 3 Contents 8 I Why invest in Norway 11 II Civil Law 23 III Business Entities 35 IV Acquisition Finance 43 V Real Estate 59 VI Energy 69 VII Employment 83 VIII Tax 103 IX Intellectual Property 113 X Public Procurement 121 XI Dispute Resolution 4 5 Norway is known for nature attractions like fjords, mountains, northern lights and the midnight sun. Because of the Gulf Stream, Norway has a friendlier climate than the latitude indicates, leaving it with ice-free ports all year round. The Gulf Stream is a warm ocean current leading water from the Caribbean north easterly across the Atlantic Ocean, and then follows the Norwegian coast northwards. 6 7 I. Why invest in Norway In spite of being a small nation, Norway is a highly developed and modern country with a very strong, open and buoyant economy. -
Den Norske Advokatforening (PDF, 237KB)
Finansdepartementet Sendt elektronisk Deres ref.: 15/2550 SL AEI/KR Dato: 19. juni 2017 Vår ref.: 243776 Høring - Forslag om endring av skatteloven § 2-2 første ledd 1. Innledning Vi viser til departementets høringsbrev av 16.3.2017 vedrørende ovennevnte høring. Det er en prioritert oppgave for Advokatforeningen å drive rettspolitisk arbeid gjennom høringsuttalelser. Advokatforeningen har derfor en rekke lovutvalg inndelt etter fagområder. I våre lovutvalg sitter advokater med særskilte kunnskaper innenfor det aktuelle fagfelt og hvert lovutvalg består av advokater med ulik erfaringsbakgrunn og kompetanse innenfor fagområdet. Arbeidet i lovutvalgene er frivillig og ulønnet. Advokatforeningen ser det som sin oppgave å være en uavhengig høringsinstans med fokus på rettssikkerhet og på kvaliteten av den foreslåtte lovgivningen. I saker som angår advokaters rammevilkår vil imidlertid regelendringen også bli vurdert opp mot advokatbransjens interesser. Det vil i disse tilfellene bli opplyst at vi uttaler oss som en berørt bransjeorganisasjon og ikke som et uavhengig ekspertorgan. Årsaken til at vi sondrer mellom disse rollene er at vi ønsker å opprettholde og videreutvikle den troverdighet Advokatforeningen har som et uavhengig og upolitisk ekspertorgan i lovgivningsprosessen. I den foreliggende sak uttaler Advokatforeningen seg som ekspertorgan. Saken er forelagt lovutvalget for skatterett. Lovutvalget består av Hanne Kristin Skaarberg Holen (elder), Cecilie Amdahl. Andreas Bullen, Thor Leegaard, Stine Lettrem-Eliassen, Amund Noss. Advokatforeningen avgir følgende høringsuttalelse: 2. Sakens bakgrunn Finansdepartementet foreslår i høringsnotatet en regel om at selskaper som er stiftet i Norge er hjemmehørende i Norge for skatteformål. I tillegg foreslås at selskaper som har reell ledelse i Norge er hjemmehørende her. Unntak fra dette skal etter forslaget gjelde der hvor et selskap er hjemmehørende i en annen stat etter skatteavtale. -
Norway: Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat
EITI International Secretariat 15 April 2021 Validation of Requirement 2.5 – Norway: Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat EITI International Secretariat 1 Phone: +47 222 00 800 E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @EITIorg www.eiti.org Address: Rådhusgata 26, 0151 Oslo, Norway Validation of Requirement 2.5 – Norway Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat Validation of Requirement 2.5 – Norway: Assessment by the EITI International Secretariat Contents 1. Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Assessment of Requirement 2.5 on beneficial ownership .................................................................. 4 Annex A: Technical assessment ................................................................................................................ 6 1. Summary The International Secretariat’s assessment is that Norway has made “inadequate progress” in meeting the initial criteria for implementing Requirement 2.5 on beneficial ownership. Norway has enacted legislation to establish a publicly accessible ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO) registry. It will apply to all companies that apply for or hold a participating interest in exploration or production oil, gas or mining licenses. Regulations supplementing the act were subject to public -
Institutt for Offentlig Retts Bibliografi 1957-2006
Institutt for offentlig retts bibliografi 1957-2006 Utarbeidet ved Det juridiske fakultetsbibliotek av Lars Finholt Jansen Randi Halveg Iversby (red.) Bård Sverre Tuseth (red.) I forbindelse med Institutt for offentlig retts 50-årsjubileum har Det juridiske fakultetsbibliotek utarbeidet instituttets bibliografi, det vil si en oversikt over skriftlige arbeider av instituttansatte i løpet av IORs første femti år. Bibliografien er begrenset til juridiske arbeider produsert ved Institutt for offentlig rett eller de instituttene som er innlemmet i Institutt for offentlig rett innenfor den enkeltes ansettelsesperiode. Forord til den elektroniske utgaven: Bibliografien foreligger hovedsakelig slik den ble publisert i Institutt for offentlig retts skriftserie nr 9 2007. Noen mindre feil er rettet og blanke sider er fjernet for å tilpasse dokumentet til det elektroniske formatet. Redaktørene, 15. mars 2012. Shaheen Sardar Ali ........................................................................................................... 10 Ivar Alvik .......................................................................................................................... 10 Johs. Andenæs................................................................................................................... 11 Kjell V. Andorsen ............................................................................................................. 31 Ole Rasmus Asbjørnsen ................................................................................................... -
Form 8832 (Rev. December 2013)
Form 8832 (Rev. 12-2013) Page 4 General Instructions Domestic default rule. Unless an election is entity classification election sought under made on Form 8832, a domestic eligible entity Revenue Procedure 2010-32, is filed and Section references are to the Internal is: attached to the amended tax returns. See Revenue Code unless otherwise noted. 1. A partnership if it has two or more Rev. Proc. 2010-32, 2010-36 I.R.B. 320 for Future Developments members. details. For the latest information about developments 2. Disregarded as an entity separate from Definitions related to Form 8832 and its instructions, its owner if it has a single owner. such as legislation enacted after they were Association. For purposes of this form, an published, go to www.irs.gov/form8832. A change in the number of members of an association is an eligible entity taxable as a eligible entity classified as an association corporation by election or, for foreign eligible What's New (defined below) does not affect the entity’s entities, under the default rules (see For entities formed on or after July 1, 2013, classification. However, an eligible entity Regulations section 301.7701-3). the Croatian Dionicko Drustvo will always be classified as a partnership will become a Business entity. A business entity is any treated as a corporation. See Notice 2013-44, disregarded entity when the entity’s entity recognized for federal tax purposes 2013-29, I.R.B. 62 for more information. membership is reduced to one member and a that is not properly classified as a trust under disregarded entity will be classified as a Regulations section 301.7701-4 or otherwise Purpose of Form partnership when the entity has more than subject to special treatment under the Code An eligible entity uses Form 8832 to elect one member. -
I Godt Selskap? Statlig Eierstyring I Teori Og Praksis
Rapport 1998:21 I godt selskap? Statlig eierstyring i teori og praksis Forord Den norske staten eier flere store og mindre selskaper. Selskapene driver ulike former for forretnings- eller næringsvirksomhet, men mange av dem ivaretar også viktige samfunnsmessige oppgaver innen ulike sektorer. Flere tidligere forvaltningsorganer er blitt omstilt til selskaper de siste årene, og andre kan bli endret. Departementene er ansvarlige for å utøve eierstyringen av selskapene og har en viktig rolle i omdanning fra forvaltningsorgan til selskap. I Norge har vi imidlertid flere ulike statlige selskapsformer: statsaksjeselskaper, statsforetak og selskaper som er organisert etter egen lov - særlovsselskaper. Statens ansvar som eier er i utgangspunktet noe forskjellig, avhengig av hvilken selskapsform som er valgt. Selskapsformen skal også avspeile i hvilken grad selskapets virksomhet skal ivareta viktige samfunnsmessige oppgaver eller om det i hovedsak skal drive forretning. Det er derfor viktig med mer kunnskap om likheter og forskjeller mellom selskapsformene og om mulige konsekvenser av valg av selskapsform. Statskonsult har satt i gang flere prosjekter for å kunne øke kunnskapen om endringer av forvaltningsorganer til selskaper og om organiseringen og styringen av selskapene. Formålet med dette er å kunne bidra i utviklingen av forvaltningspolitikken og å bistå departementene med råd i forbindelse med eventuelle omstillinger av virksomheter. Rapporten baserer seg på kartlegging og analyse av 19 heleide statlige selskaper og to selskaper der staten eier mer enn 50 %. Dette utgjør alle statsforetak og særlovsselskapene, unntatt fond, samt de fleste heleide statlige aksjeselskapene. Statskonsult skal benytte resultatene til sitt arbeid med utvikling av forvaltningen. Men vi håper at departementer, statlige selskaper og andre virksomheter kan ha nytte av rapporten i forbindelse med omstillinger og i utøvelsen av eierstyringen. -
Taxation of Partnerships - Legal General Report for the Nordic Tax Research Council´S Annual Meeting on 22 May 2015 in Aarhus
Nordic Tax J. 2015 2:47–56 Report Open Access Liselotte Madsen Taxation of Partnerships - Legal general report for the Nordic Tax Research Council´s annual meeting on 22 May 2015 in Aarhus DOI 10.1515/ntaxj-2015-0005 though the similar Norwegian word is “utdeling”, and so Received Sep 08, 2015; accepted Sep 18, 2015 on. In English translation, the word “distribution” is used. I hope that it does not provide any linguistic challenges. The term partnership is used to the extent that it is not found necessary to indicate the national name, and ex- 1 Introduction and terminology presses only that it is a transparent business. First, a short review of the company law rules regard- This report has been written on the basis of a number of ing the establishment of partnerships will be carried out, Nordic national reports on the subject: Taxation of part- after which, the tax rules will be reviewed. nerships. The contributions from Denmark, Norway, Swe- den, and Iceland have been incorporated in the report to the best of my ability and by relevance. 2 Company law matters The term "partnership" is a general term for a num- ber of companies that have a common characteristic - First, it is relevant to relate to the company law rules ap- namely that they are not taxable entities, but rather trans- plicable to partnerships. A description of this has been parent for tax purposes. The company type, partnership, deemed important for the understanding of the civil law which is not a separate tax subject, can be found in all rules for partnerships, both in relation to the third parties the Nordic countries. -
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. 10 East 53Rd Street
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. Oslo, 23 October 2018 10 East 53rd Street, 9th Floor Lawyer in charge: NEW YORK NY 10022 Kaare P. Sverdrup United States of America ("ISDA") LEGAL OPINION Dear Sirs, VALIDITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF COLLATERAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE ISDA CREDIT SUPPORT DOCUMENTS UNDER NORWEGIAN LAW — COLLATERAL TAKER INSOLVENCY 1. INTRODUCTION (a) We refer to your email of 19 September 2018 in which we were requested to provide you with a collateral taker insolvency opinion - validity and enforceability under Norwegian law of collateral arrangements under the following ISDA documents: (i) the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement (the "2002 Master Agreement"); (ii) the 1992 ISDA Multicurrency-Cross Border Master Agreement (the "1992 Master Agreement"); (iii) the 2016 Phase One Credit Support Annex for Initial Margin (IM) governed by New York law (the "IM NY Annex"); (iv) the 2016 Phase One IM Credit Support Deed, governed by English law (the "IM Deed", and together with the IM NY Annex, the "IM Security Documents"); (v) the 2018 ISDA Euroclear Security Agreement subject to Belgian Law (the "2018 Euroclear Security Agreement"); (vi) the 2018 ISDA Euroclear Collateral Transfer Agreement Subject to New York Law (Multi-Regime Scope) (the "2018 Euroclear NY CTA"); (vii) the 2018 ISDA Euroclear Collateral Transfer Agreement Subject to English Law (Multi-Regime Scope) (the "2018 Euroclear English CTA"); (viii) the 2017 ISDA Euroclear Collateral Transfer Agreement Subject to English Law (Multi-Regime) (the "2017 Euroclear English CTA"); Advokatfirmaet Wiersholm AS Dokkveien 1 i PO Box 1400 Vika, NO-0115 Oslo I T. +47210 210 001 wiersholm.no Bank Account No: 6011.0543908. -
Regulatory Reform in Norway
Regulatory Reform in Norway MARKETISATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES – STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES © OECD (2003). All rights reserved. 1 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: • to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; • to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and • to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). © OECD 2003 Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, tel. -
Corporate Acquisitions and Mergers Editor-In-Chief: Peter F.C. Begg Supplement 3 of 2013
Corporate Acquisitions and Mergers Editor-in-Chief: Peter F.C. Begg Supplement 3 of 2013 Corporate Acquisitions and Mergers represents the largest database of M&A know-how available anywhere in the world. Top firms from the largest 50 economies in the world have provided a concise legal analysis of the cultural, legal, regulatory, tax and accounting regimes affecting transactions in their home jurisdictions. Please find enclosed the following completely updated chapters: • Brazil Guilherme Leite & Fábio Contente Pinheiro Neto Advogados, São Paulo, Brazil • Israel Ehud Sol Herzog Fox & Neeman • Nigeria Ladi Taiwo & Alayo Ogunbiyi Abdulai, Taiwo & Co. • Norway Arne Didrik Kjørnæs, Susanne Munch Thore & Anders Myklebust Wikborg Rein & Co. • Spain Fernando de las Cuevas & Álvaro Mateo Gómez-Acebo & Pombo Abogados, S.L.P • Switzerland Hans-Jakob Diem & Jacques Iffland Lenz & Staehelin • United Kingdom Nilufer von Bismarck Slaughter and May 9888002863 Corporate Acquisitions and Mergers Volume 2 Editor-in-Chief: Peter F.C. Begg Supp 3/2013 CORPORATE ACQUISITIONS AND MERGERS Published by Kluwer Law International P.O. Box 316 2400 AH Alphen aan den Rijn The Netherlands Sold and distributed in North, Central and South America by Aspen Publishers, Inc. 7201 McKinney Circle Frederick MD 21704 USA In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Law International c/o Turpin Distribution Services Ltd. Stratton Business Park Pegasus Drive Biggleswade Bedfordshire SG18 8TQ United Kingdom DISCLAIMER: The material in this volume is in the nature of general comment only. It is not offered as advice on any particular matter and should not be taken as such. The editor and the contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with regard to any- thing done or omitted to be done, and with respect to the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this volume. -
State Owned Enterprises and the Principle of Competitive Neutrality 2009
State Owned Enterprises and the Principle of Competitive Neutrality 2009 The OECD Competition Committee debated the application of competition rules to state owned enterprises and the principle of competitive neutrality in October 2009. This document includes an executive summary, a background note and an issues paper by Mr. Antonio Capobianco for the OECD and country contributions from Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Czech Republic, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Korea, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and BIAC, as well as two aides memoires for the discussions. Due to their privileged position SOEs may negatively affect competition and it is therefore important to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible consistent with their public service responsibilities, they are subject to similar competition disciplines as private enterprises. Although enforcing competition rules against SOEs presents enforcers with particular challenges, competition rules should, and generally do, apply to both private and state-owned enterprises, subject to very limited exceptions. Competition law alone is not sufficient in ensuring a level playing field for SOEs and private enterprises, which is why policies aimed at achieving competitive neutrality between the two play an essential role. Competitive neutrality can be understood as a regulatory framework (i) within which public and private enterprises face the same set of rules and (ii) where no contact with the state brings competitive advantage to any market participant. Presence of competitive neutrality policies is of particular importance in recently liberalised sectors, where they play a crucial role in leveling the playing field between former state monopoly incumbents and private entrants.