International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 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 General Court reverses its position taken four years ago, while the UN discusses tax policy in New York.
Discussion on amount B under the first part of the OECD's two-pronged approach to international tax reform is far from over, if the latest consultation is anything go by.
Pillar two might be top of mind for many multinational companies, but the huge variations between countries’ readiness means getting ahead of the game now, argues Russell Gammon, chief solutions officer at Tax Systems.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the looming battle between the UN and the OECD for dominance in global tax policy.
Company tax changes are central to the German government’s plan to revive the economy, but sources say they miss the mark. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The winners of the ITR Americas Tax Awards have been announced for 2023!
There is a ‘huge demand’ for tax services in the Middle East, says new Clyde & Co partner Rachel Fox in an interview with ITR.
The ECB warns the tax could leave banks with weaker capital levels, while the UAE publishes guidance on its new corporate tax regime.
Caroline Setliffe and Ben Shem-Tov of Eversheds Sutherland give an overview of the US transfer pricing penalty regime and UK diverted profits tax considerations for multinational companies.
The result follows what EY said was one of the most successful years in the firm’s history.