Malta: Tax treatment of securitisation vehicles
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: 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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Mexico is advised to eliminate its zero-rating for VAT, Hong Kong cuts stamp duty, road tax rates fall across the OECD and G20, and more
Ulf Johannemann, who has been on trial in Frankfurt since September, was the firm’s most senior tax partner until 2019
Important dates for the Women in Business Law Awards for 2024 revealed
More than 1,000 PwC staff in China and Hong Kong engaged in improper answer sharing, it is understood
Yusuf Akhmadi of Indonesia’s Directorate General of Taxation reports on the country’s latest domestic and cross-border initiatives to clamp down on tax evasion
The new rate is a blow to Samsung, while two law firms have made significant tax hires into their respective Washington DC offices
Rema Serafi, KPMG’s first-ever female vice chair for tax, talks about breaking the mould in an exclusive interview with ITR
The metal multinational’s victory, in a case worth $12 million, continues the trend of companies coming out on top against India’s revenue department
Guy Bud and Matthew Greene from litigation firm Stewarts review a dispute on tiered partnerships, which raises questions on corporation tax and partnership law
The stagnating pay and tax bonuses cap follow slashed payouts for the deals team and business consolidation in the last month