Malta: Tax treatment of securitisation vehicles

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

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

The UK is ‘heading to Scandinavia’ as its tax burden increases and isn’t creating an attractive environment for a wave of investment, experts have told ITR
Japan, South Korea and Germany increased their R&D tax budgets at a much greater rate over a 14-year period, say RCK Partners and the London Business School
Under the proposed directive, multinationals with numerous EU presences would have to make only one filing to comply with pillar two
Robert Venables of Old Street Tax Chambers had previously brought multiple cases against HMRC on behalf of clients
No further action will be taken in relation to the four cases, however the regulator said it hopes to conclude five remaining investigations into PwC’s tax leaks scandal ‘as soon as possible’
The OECD also reported ‘political issues’ in reaching a consensus on amount B; in other news, PwC introduced new managing director roles as a partnership alternative
Coca-Cola ‘strongly believes’ the IRS and the Tax Court misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable regulations for its TP dispute over foreign affiliates
Nigeria is pondering the adoption of pillar two despite rejecting it in the past, local experts also suggest
The self-governing UK dependency said that over 95% of Jersey companies will be unaffected by pillar two and that Revenue Jersey is ‘well-equipped’ to implement the rules
Clough, EY’s global tax chief data officer, tells ITR about chasing great ideas, tax’s potential to be an AI hotspot, and what makes tax cool
Gift this article