The Norwegian Supreme Court clarifies when the tax administration may access personal mobile phones

In June 2025, the Norwegian Tax Administration audited four companies. The individual at the centre of the case (hereafter referred to as "A") was managing director of one company and chairman of the board of two others – neither of which had any employees or a managing director. As part of the audit, the Tax Administration ordered that A’s personal phone be copied. A objected, but the Tax Directorate upheld the order, and A sought a temporary injunction to stop the authorities from reviewing the copied material. The District Court and Court of Appeal dismissed his request.

The case turned on (i) whether information on A’s personal phone could be treated as part of the company’s “archives” under Section 10-4 of the Tax Administration Act, and (ii) if so, whether copying and reviewing the phone was proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The majority agreed with the lower courts that “the business archives” covers documents and information that form a natural part of the company’s operations, regardless of where they are stored. The key question is whether the information naturally belongs to the business – not who owns the device on which it is stored. The majority added that if a company organises itself so that relevant business communications are kept only on privately owned devices, that content may still fall within the company’s archives, subject to a concrete, case-by-case assessment. Given A’s roles across several closely connected companies with limited personnel, the majority found it likely that his phone contained audit-relevant business information.

The majority agreed that copying the phone interfered with A’s private life under Article 8 ECHR – the dispute was whether that interference was justified. The majority nevertheless considered the measure proportionate, placing weight on procedural safeguards that limit access to purely private material. In particular, content that does not form part of the business’s archives – such as legally privileged correspondence, health information, and other personal material – is to be shielded before any tax inspector reviews the data. The majority also emphasised the right of the taxpayer (or their representative) to be present during the review, and the possibility to appeal the access order.

The dissenting judge considered that Section 10-4 (2), interpreted in light of Article 8 ECHR, did not authorise copying and review of A’s personal phone on these facts. The dissent stressed that the legislature does not appear to have specifically considered access to private individuals’ mobile phones in ordinary administrative audits where there is no suspicion of tax evasion. Where several measures could achieve an effective audit, the dissent argued that privacy considerations must carry significant weight – even where internal shielding procedures exist.

This ruling has immediate practical implications:

• Managing directors and board chairmen are most at risk of having their personal phones copied during a tax audit, in particular where they hold roles across multiple companies or where a company has no other employees.
   
• Private ownership does not protect a device from being included in an audit, if business information is stored on it.
   
• Procedural safeguards apply: private and privileged content should be shielded before the inspector reviews the material, and the affected person has the right to be present and to appeal.
   
• A case-by-case assessment is always required: the Tax Administration cannot copy all devices connected to a company — the closeness of the individual's role is decisive.
   

We recommend that companies and their senior personnel review how business communications are currently managed and seek advice promptly if a tax audit is initiated and access to personal devices is requested.