International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

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



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 ( and Kirsten Cassar (

Camilleri Preziosi

Tel: +356 2123 8989


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Brazilian government may be about to align the country’s unique system with OECD standards, but this is a long-awaited TP reform and success is uncertain.
Two months since EU political agreement on pillar two and few member states have made progress on new national laws, but the arrival of OECD technical guidance should quicken the pace. Ralph Cunningham reports.
It’s one of the great ironies of recent history that a populist Republican may have helped make international tax policy more progressive.
Lawmakers have up to 120 days to decide the future of Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules, but many taxpayers are wary of radical change.
Shell reports profits of £32.2 billion, prompting calls for higher taxes on energy companies, while the IMF warns Australia to raise taxes to sustain public spending.
Governments now have the final OECD guidance on how to implement the 15% global minimum corporate tax rate.
The Indian company, which is contesting the bill, has a family connection to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – whose government has just been hit by a tax scandal.
Developments included calls for tax reform in Malaysia and the US, concerns about the level of the VAT threshold in the UK, Ukraine’s preparations for EU accession, and more.
A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.
The BEPS Monitoring Group has found a rare point of agreement with business bodies advocating an EU-wide one-stop-shop for compliance under BEFIT.