* “That this central policy was kept out of the election campaign fraudulently and with intention, stands”

Can I assume that now for one whole year I have a tax free status in Malta like all those IIP applicants?

This is the crux of the residency loop-hole, I feel.

That, and the potential pressure points applicable by this very loophole on Malta’s new citizens.

In a voter scenario where the ID card with “electronic features” comes into being manipulated by this Labour Party that has cheated and misrepresented its way into Government, this loophole is a lethal combination for the preservation of Democracy as it is classically defined.

That the base act of selling passports is amoral, stands.

That this central policy was kept of the election campaign fraudulently and with intention, stands.

That Citizenship has now become a Financial Services product, and as such subject to higher EU regulation than “just” citizenship, stands.

That the Government is guilty of creating a situation of unfair competition in the Financial Services market with the granting of “a contract” of exclusivity to Henley & Partners, stands.

That this apparent precedent will unfairly impact the whole of the EU and other territories, stands.

That Malta is seeking to gain where it morally shouldn’t, stands

No amount of spin before us Maltese or the EU is going to change the basics: this is wrong.

Corruption should have a wider application and not be so narrowly applied to bribes, trafficking of humans and drugs.

This is an entirely corrupt governance.

There is nothing remotely sane about it.

Complacency and an incomplete picture of the worst case scenarios – which is the Labour option on any good day – is what allows it to happen.

Its repercussions will eventually turn around to bite its creators, Muscat and Mallia, in their ample arses.

I expected the Opposition to ‘oppose’ this with all its might; alas, it was a complete let down. The Opposition should have requested a meeting with the EU commissioner concerned and made itself clear. Again, it failed even in doing this.

Let us now hope that the Opposition will secure the right of those who REALLY are Maltese and working abroad, to vote in the General elections. At least, it should make this as one of its priorities. I am fully aware that the PN tried to pass a law in this regard when in Government, only to be blocked by Dr. Alfred Sant’s opposition. It now has the pronouncement of the EU itself to back its claims. We are on the brink of a banality: those who purchase a Maltese-EU passport will have the right to vote and those who have a God-given right to vote because this country belongs to them, will not.

This should be a wake-up call for Dr. Busuttil and the PN Opposition. Honestly, wake up!

It would appear to me that they may have had assurances from the “high-powered” Maltese negotiating team, headed by Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici, that the Maltese statute does provide hard and fast rules on residency requirements.

Well, it doesn’t, and if the European Commission accepted that presumed assurance without checking the facts first, then they’ve been taken for a ride.

There are no specific rules or official Inland Revenue guidelines on the manner in which the residence status should be determined for Maltese income tax purposes.

Article 4 of the Malta Income Tax Act refers only to ‘ordinary residence’ and not to ‘residence’. The Act does not define “ordinary residence” but defines “resident in Malta” to mean: “an individual who resides in Malta except for such temporary absences as to the Commissioner may seem reasonable and not inconsistent with the claim of such individual to be resident in Malta”.

This ‘definition’ is open to interpretation because it has a lot of implications rather than factual statement. For example, ‘temporary absences’ in this definition seems to imply that ‘residence’ implies a habitual and continuous physical presence. It would therefore mainly depend on the length of a person’s stay in Malta.

It also worryingly implies that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue holds discretionary powers in the determination of the ‘residence’ status of an individual.

Historically, the Maltese Inland Revenue would typically treat as a ‘resident’ of Malta an individual physically present in Malta in the aggregate for a number of days equivalent to 183 days or more in a tax (or calendar) year.

It would be fair to mention that when determining ‘ordinary residence’, in terms of Inland Revenue practice it is necessary to take into account the regularity and frequency of an individual’s visits to Malta, family and business ties and nature of that person’s visits to Malta to determine whether a person is an ordinary resident of Malta for Maltese tax purposes.

WE MUST NOT FORGET, that the key and lock in all of this is the double tax treaty agreement that would have been signed with the country of the individual’s nationality. Most treaties have tie-breaker rules that would normally apply on a hard and fast definition of residence.

In the Maltese case (rather than in other countries) this is wide open to interpretation at the discretion of a government-appointed individual: the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.