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

Pillar two may be raising less than expected, but professor René Matteotti says the regime is still changing multinational tax behaviour
Multinationals importing goods into Brazil may need to align TP files and customs documentation more closely as authorities gain new tools to challenge related-party transactions
The private equity-backed deal hands Grant Thornton immediate and impressive US scale, but World Tax data suggests the firm still has work to do to gain recognition
From Instagram content to £100m transactions, the founder of Thomas & Co International discusses building a modern tax and accounting firm for business founders
Growing GAAR scrutiny is driving taxpayers to look beyond legal form and demonstrate the commercial rationale underpinning tax-efficient structures
Pillar two has been clients’ ‘biggest headache’ but also a driver of growth for MHA, which believes it has the edge over its big four rivals
Public country-by-country reporting is exposing multinational tax data to investors, journalists and competitors, creating fresh risks for businesses
Pillar two compliance is creating unprecedented data demands for multinational tax departments, making closer collaboration with FP&A teams essential for accurate reporting and audit readiness
Among the arrivals is Andrew Howell, who leaves scandal-hit PwC Australia after representing PepsiCo in a high-profile TP dispute
ITR's podcast examines whether the big four have overarching cultural issues and assesses the competitive threat of technology-backed transfer pricing firms
Gift this article