Strengthening anti-tax avoidance rules in Malta
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Strengthening anti-tax avoidance rules in Malta

Sponsored by

whp.png
Malta has moved to implement the latest ATAD legislations

Ramona Azzopardi, Fiorella San Martin and Joselyn Teuma of WH Partners explain how Malta has strengthened its financial certainty by successfully implementing the ATAD II regulations to its domestic legal system.

Since the publication of the ATAD I and ATAD II at the EU level, Malta has gradually started to adopt the provisions prescribed in the EU legislations and implement them into its domestic legal system. 

While the provisions of ATAD I came into effect last year by means of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives Implementation Regulations, the provisions of the ATAD II, dealing with hybrid mismatches, were transposed in Malta in December 2019, through a revision of the same regulations (ATAD II regulations). The ATAD II regulations entered into effect in January 2020, with the exception of the provisions on reverse hybrid mismatches, which will take effect in January 2022. 



ATAD II regulations apply to Malta’s taxpayers, including permanent establishments (PE) situated in Malta, and to entities that are treated as transparent for tax purposes in Malta. Its principal aim is to determine and correct mismatch outcomes which result directly from hybrid mismatch arrangements. 

Considering the outcomes

In terms of ATAD II regulations, a mismatch outcome is deemed to arise in the following circumstances:


  • A double deduction – where a deduction of payment, expense or loss is claimed both in the source state and the investor’s state; or

  • Deduction without inclusion – where a deduction of payment is claimed in the jurisdiction of the payer and no corresponding inclusion is made in the jurisdiction of the payee. 

ATAD II regulations also cover an array of arrangements which are considered as hybrid mismatches including payments made under hybrid financial instrument, payments made by or to hybrid entities, hybrid PEs, and imported mismatches.

Tackling mismatch outcomes

ATAD II regulations provide for measures that address mismatch outcomes resulting from hybrid arrangements by disallowing a claim for a deduction in Malta or imposing the inclusion of certain income, depending on the nature of the mismatch. 



Under ATAD II regulations, however, a disallowed deduction may be set-off against dual inclusion income that arises during a current tax period or a subsequent one. 



A deduction is also restricted for any payments made by a taxpayer where such payments directly or indirectly fund deductible expenditure and give rise to a hybrid mismatch as a result of a transaction or a series of transactions. The transactions in question must be made between associated enterprises or entered into as part of a structured arrangement, unless one of the jurisdictions involved in the transactions has made an equivalent adjustment in respect of the hybrid mismatch. Certain mismatch outcomes, resulting from an arrangement involving a payment of interest under a financial instrument to associated enterprise may, however, fall outside scope of the rules. 



Furthermore, a Malta-based taxpayer is under the obligation to include to its tax base income attributable to its disregarded PE unless the same income is exempt from tax by means of a double tax treaty between Malta and the respective third country. 



ATAD II regulations also require that, where a hybrid transfer is designed to produce a relief for tax withheld at source on a payment derived from a transferred financial instrument to more than one of the parties involved, the benefit of the relief is to be limited proportionally to the net taxable income regarding the payment in question. 

Reverse hybrids mismatches and its components


ATAD II regulations provide for instances where an entity, due to its unique characterisation in different jurisdictions, is seen as transparent in one jurisdiction and opaque in the other. 

Under the regulations, an entity may be considered as a resident in Malta for tax purposes, if one or more foreign investor entities hold a substantial interest in the Malta incorporated hybrid entity and the jurisdiction of the investors treat it as a taxable entity. This general principle, however, provides for an exception in relation to collective investment vehicles, which are exempt from the scope of reverses hybrid mismatch rules. 

Dual residence mismatches


Where a taxpayer is deemed resident for tax purposes in two jurisdictions, the taxpayer ends up utilising its status in both jurisdictions to benefit from a dual deduction on payments, expenses or losses from its tax bases. 




With the implementation of ATAD II regulations, however, this is limited, as the claim for deduction may be denied where one of the jurisdictions claiming tax residency is Malta. Where the other jurisdiction is an EU member state, the deduction can be denied only if the taxpayer is deemed as not being a resident in Malta under the double tax treaty between Malta and the other member state. 





Ramona Azzopardi

E: ramona.azzopardi@whpartners.eu


Fiorella San Martin

E: fiorella.sanmartin@whpartners.eu



Joselyn Teuma

E: joselyn.teuma@whpartners.eu

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As German clients attempt to comply with complex cross-border rules, local advisers argue that aggressive tax authorities are making life even harder
Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
The UK tax authority reportedly lost a case due to missing a deadline; in other news, Canada has approved pillar two legislation
There will always be multinationals trying to minimise tax by pushing the boundaries of their cross-border arrangements, Rob Heferen claimed
HMRC’s attempts to crack down on fraudulent tax relief claims are well-meaning, but the agency risks penalising genuinely innovative businesses, writes Katy Long of ForrestBrown
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa are among the countries the OECD believes could benefit from the simplified TP rules
It comes despite an offshore enabler penalty existing in the UK throughout the entire period
It is extraordinary that tax advisers in the UK can offer their services without having to join a professional body. This looks like it is coming to an end, Ralph Cunningham writes
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
The ‘big four’ firm has also vowed to spend more on nurturing junior talent; in other news, Blick Rothenberg has hired a pair of tax partners
Gift this article