\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
For Vince McDonagh<\/strong><\/span> – May 31, 2023<\/p>\n The Norwegian Parliament has this afternoon voted in favor of the government’s controversial new “land rent” tax, which will tax much of the country’s salmon industry.<\/p>\n The decision on the new tax – also known as the “salmon tax” – came after a long and often fragmented five-hour debate in the Storting. The vote was approved by a vote of 93 to 76, a majority of 17.<\/p>\n Although the rate has been reduced from the original budget proposal of 40% to 35% and finally to 25%, it effectively doubles the tax burden on coastal salmon and trout farming businesses when combined with existing taxes. Land-based salmon farms and small coastal farms are exempt.<\/p>\n Billions of kroner were wiped off the value of the salmon company’s shares on the Oslo Stock Exchange immediately after the vote.<\/p>\n The result represents a victory for the Labor-Centre coalition, which has faced a barrage of criticism from industry, opposition parties and business commentators since the plan was first announced in the Budget national last September.<\/p>\n Yesterday it looked like the vote could be won by a majority of one after a late decision by the Liberals \u2013 and the single party Patient Focus \u2013 to back the government. Patient Focus was formed two years ago to promote the construction of a new hospital in the Finnmark town of Alta.<\/p>\n He won one of Finnmark’s five parliamentary seats using Norway’s proportional representation voting system.<\/p>\n The government was later pushed by the decision of the far-left party Red (“Rodt”) to support the 25% rate, even though it wanted a much larger tax take from salmon companies. Rodt has nine members sitting in the Storting.<\/p>\n Other measures voted today include higher revenue for coastal salmon communities, stronger environmental controls and an increase in the property tax assessment discount from 50% to 75% (which mainly affects privately owned salmon).<\/p>\n The salmon industry is expected to comment on the decision later, but despite the rate reduction it will not be satisfied.<\/p>\n