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

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

vella.jpg

cassar.jpg

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 (donald.vella@camilleripreziosi.com) and Kirsten Cassar (kirsten.cassar@camilleripreziosi.com)

Camilleri Preziosi

Tel: +356 2123 8989

Website: www.camilleripreziosi.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As the firm embarks on a major shakeup of its EMEA partnerships, some staff will be watching nervously
The buyout of Hucke and Associates continues Ryan’s streak of firm acquisitions; in other news, a UK appeal against VAT on private school fees was dismissed
Tax teams are responding to usual client demand in the region, albeit with increased working from home flexibility, local sources indicate
A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Digital tax reform is dissolving the old ‘temporal buffer’, forcing systems, institutions, and professionals to adapt as real-time reporting reshapes governance, capability, and compliance
Our first instalment features analysis of Deloitte’s landmark EMEA merger, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court tariff showdown and Venezuela’s tax evolution
While some believe it could have a positive effect on the wider advisory landscape, others argue that HMRC’s ‘red tape’ exercise won’t deter bad actors
The political optics of the US’s carve-out deal are poor, but as the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan writes, it preserves pillar two’s guiding ethos
The big four firm reportedly sent ‘threatening’ correspondence to Unity Advisory over its hiring of ex-PwC partners; plus tax recruitment news from the week
Gift this article