Malta: Tax treatment of securitisation vehicles

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: Tax treatment of securitisation vehicles

vella.jpg

cassar.jpg

Donald Vella


Kirsten Cassar

Securitisation is an essential means of raising finance and Malta's flexible framework creates scope for a wide range of transactions. Maltese law provides for a number of securitisation structures, all of which may benefit from the applicable fiscal treatment. It is pertinent to note however that recently the Maltese legislator has clarified that the regime applicable to Maltese securitisation vehicles has, in some aspects, limited application to reinsurance special purpose vehicles established in Malta, to which specific regulations apply. The flexibility of the securitisation regime finds its ground in the extensive range of assets which may be securitised through a Maltese vehicle. Any asset may be securitised, whether existing or future, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, and where the context so allows, risks. This implies that both traditional assets, such as trade receivables, mortgage loans, life insurance policies, tangible and intangible assets as well as risks relating to obligations or liabilities assumed by third parties may be the subject of a securitisation transaction.

Taxation of the securitisation vehicle

The tax position of securitisation vehicles in Malta is generally neutral. Special purpose vehicles established in Malta are taxable in Malta under the normal income tax rules at the standard corporate income tax rate of 35%. However, substantial deductions are available.

Specifically enacted tax regulations clarify that the following deductions may always be availed of by a securitisation vehicle:

  • Cost of acquisition: Expenses payable to the originator for the acquisition of securitisation assets or the assumption of risk;

  • Finance expenses: Premiums, interest or discounts relating to financial instruments issued, or funds borrowed, to finance the acquisition of securitisation assets or the assumption of risks;

  • Operating expenses: Costs incurred in the day-to-day administration of the securitisation vehicle and the management of the securitisation assets, including the collection of any relevant claims.

After the aforementioned deductions are taken, the securitisation vehicle may opt to claim a further deduction on its remaining taxable income, thereby typically ensuring no taxation at the level of the securitisation vehicle. The deductions, including the further deduction, constitute deemed income for the originator. However, no tax is payable in Malta on such deemed income where the originator is not resident in Malta for tax purposes.

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

Camilleri Preziosi

Tel: +356 21238989

Website: www.camilleripreziosi.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Governments are rewriting tax policy for the AI era, deploying digital taxes, tailored incentives and algorithmic enforcement that redefine where value is created
Wingrove will succeed Bill Thomas, who has served in the role since 2017; in other news, Andersen unveiled a sharp increase in revenues for 2025
Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
As GCCs increasingly become strategic hubs, multinationals face heightened risks around permanent establishment and place of effective management
While all options presented ‘drawbacks’, European Commission tax leader Wopke Hoekstra said the controversial US carve-out deal has ‘many benefits’
From tech preparations to competitiveness concerns, Tax Systems’ Russell Gammon addresses the most pressing client considerations arising from the SbS deal
Despite estimates that the US/OECD agreement will cost countries billions, the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan believes the deal is a ‘necessary evil’
The firm’s eye-catching UK launch is a major statement of intent, but it will face stern opposition in its quest to be the top global tax player
The postponement came after industry representatives flagged implementation issues with the registration regime; in other news, firms made key tax partner additions
Despite the increased yield, the time taken to resolve enquiries was at a six-year high, new HMRC statistics have revealed
Gift this article