Avkortning av rentefradrag etter skatteloven § 6-91: En av skatterettens koblinger til regnskapsretten, demonstrert gjennom Høyesteretts dom i DNB-saken (HR-2024-2073-A)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Denne artikkelen behandler en kobling mellom skatteretten og regnskapsretten hjemlet i skatteloven § 6-91. Bestemmelsen regulerer størrelsen på rentefradraget i Norge for selskaper med filial i land der skatteavtalen med Norge er basert på unntaksmetoden for unngåelse av dobbeltbeskatning. Reguleringen skjer gjennom en avkortningsformel for rentefradraget, der rentefradraget skal avkortes med den andelen som filialens eiendeler utgjør av selskapets totale eiendeler. Høyesterett avklarte i DNB-saken at selskapsregnskapets bokførte verdier er avgjørende i denne avkortningsformelen. Beregning av avkortningen av rentefradraget bygger på regnskapsmessig verdsetting. Eksemplene i artikkelen viser at regnskapsmessige valg, både valg av regnskapsspråk og regnskapsmessig verdsetting, vil påvirke størrelsen på rentefradraget som gis i Norge. English abstract Shortening of Interest Deductions Under Section 6-91 of the Tax Act: One of the Tax Law's Links to Accounting Law, Demonstrated Through the Supreme Court's Judgment in the Dnb Case (HR-2024-2073-A) This article discusses a link between tax law and accounting law, based on Section 6-91 of the Tax Act. The said rule regulates the size of the interest deduction in Norway for companies with branches in countries where the tax treaty with Norway is based on the exception method for the avoidance of double taxation. The regulation is carried out through a truncation formula for the interest deduction, where the interest deduction is to be truncated by the proportion that the branch's assets constitute of the company's total assets. The Supreme Court clarified in the DNB case that the book values of the company's accounts are decisive in this truncation formula. The calculation of the truncation of the interest deduction is based on accounting valuation. The examples in the article show that accounting choices, both choice of GAAP and accounting policy choices within the chosen GAAP, will affect the size of the interest deduction granted in Norway.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".