Malta: Malta clarifies taxation of fees paid to non-resident investment committee members

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Malta: Malta clarifies taxation of fees paid to non-resident investment committee members

vella.jpg

cassar.jpg

Donald Vella


Kirsten Cassar

In a recent release, Malta's Institute of Financial Services Practitioners (IFSP) sets out its understanding of the tax treatment of remuneration derived by non-Maltese resident members of an investment committee of a Maltese licensed collective investment scheme. The release is based on discussions with Malta's Inland Revenue Department (IRD). The clarification is particularly welcome in light of the growth in the Maltese fund industry in recent years. Maltese law provides for various types of retail and non-retail funds, all of which must be licensed by the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) and must comply with ongoing regulation and supervision requirements based on the category of investors the fund is targeting. In terms of the relevant rules issued by the MFSA, a self-managed fund must establish an in-house investment committee in lieu of an investment fund manager. Furthermore, the majority of the investment committee's meetings must be physically held in Malta.

In this context, the IFSP together with the IRD have clarified that non-resident investment committee members of Maltese funds are subject to tax on the portion of remuneration they receive that is attributable to management services that are physically performed in Malta.

Non-residents are generally taxable in Malta on Malta-source income and gains. In principle, director's fees are considered to be Malta-source income if the company is resident in Malta. Other fees for services rendered are typically considered to have a Malta source if the services are physically performed in Malta.

IFSP and the Maltese tax authorities have therefore clarified that remuneration for the provision of advice as an investment committee member should be regarded as consideration (payment) for services rendered. Consequently, non-resident investment committee members should be taxable in Malta on the portion of the remuneration they receive that is attributable to the services that are physically performed in Malta.

Because of the complexity of making that determination, the tax authorities have determined that the portion of the remuneration that should be attributable to the portion of the services that are physically performed in Malta is to be computed on an annual basis as the higher of:

  • a pro-rata amount of the total remuneration received, determined on a per diem basis based on the actual number of days of physical presence in Malta; and

  • one-twelfth of the investment committee member's compensation.

However, this treatment may be limited by the provisions of an applicable tax treaty. If a treaty is in force between Malta and the country of residence of the non-resident investment committee member, the treaty may allocate taxing rights to the country of residence, in which case Malta would have no jurisdiction to tax the remuneration received. Malta has about 70 tax treaties in force.

Donald Vella (donald.vella@camilleripreziosi.com) and Kirsten Cassar (kirsten.cassar@camilleripreziosi.com)

Camilleri Preziosi

Tel: +356 2123 8989

Website: www.camilleripreziosi.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

New research, which suggests LLMs can silently corrupt complex documents, should alert tax and legal teams relying on AI to handle iterative drafting and compliance workflows
Maintaining increased funding for HMRC is a ‘high possibility’ if he becomes PM, ITR has also heard
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Europe Tax Awards
The firm has hired a team of private client lawyers from Withers to launch in New York and Connecticut, though ITR analysis suggests it faces stiff competition
The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Despite the Netherlands featuring an unusual concentration of World Tax-ranked technology-led providers, sources believe there’s a long way to go to challenge the established players
Ethics seems to be playing a subservient role to an entitlement culture borne out of a pervasive ‘revenue at all costs’ mentality at the big four
Historical World Tax data suggests the ‘largest law firm merger in history’ may not pose a serious threat to the world's leading tax practices
The repeal of Libya’s statute of limitations and tougher enforcement leave taxpayers navigating a high-stakes choice between conciliation and litigation
Gift this article