What is a Double Tax Avoidance Arrangement (DTAA)?
A DTAA is a bilateral treaty that sets out agreed rules on how certain types of income—such as business profits, dividends, royalties, or capital gains—are to be taxed when two jurisdictions could both lay claim.
These treaties, while often modeled on the OECD Model Tax Convention, are not adopted wholesale.
Malaysia has gradually tailored its treaty provisions, at times borrowing language from the United Nations Model Tax Convention to better reflect its domestic tax policies or to accommodate the circumstances of its treaty partners. This means no two DTAAs are identical: each is negotiated to strike a balance between protecting Malaysia’s tax base and encouraging cross-border trade and investment.
Malaysia’s DTAAs come in two main forms:
- Comprehensive agreements, which cover nearly all categories of income.
- Limited agreements, which apply only to specific income streams, such as revenue from shipping or air transport.
These treaties are legally binding only once both Malaysia and its partner country complete their internal ratification processes. Typically, this involves legislative approval, the exchange of diplomatic notes, or formal ratification instruments. After entry into force, the treaty’s provisions enter into effect from the dates specified in the agreement.
Countries with signed DTAs with Malaysia
|
No |
Country / Jurisdiction |
Status |
DTA Signed |
|
1 |
Albania |
In force |
24 Jan 1994 |
|
2 |
Australia |
In force + Protocols |
20 Aug 1980 |
|
3 |
Austria |
In force |
20 Sep 1989 |
|
4 |
Bahrain |
In force + Protocol |
14 Jun 1999 |
|
5 |
Bangladesh |
In force |
19 Apr 1983 |
|
6 |
Belgium |
In force + Protocol |
24 Oct 1973 |
|
7 |
Bosnia & Herzegovina |
In force |
21 Jun 2007 |
|
8 |
Brunei |
In force |
5 Aug 2009 |
|
9 |
Cambodia |
In force |
3 Sep 2019 |
|
10 |
Canada |
In force |
16 Oct 1976 |
|
11 |
Chile |
In force |
3 Sep 2004 |
|
12 |
China |
In force + Protocol |
23 Nov 1985 |
|
13 |
Croatia |
In force |
18 Feb 2002 |
|
14 |
Czech Republic |
In force |
8 Mar 1996 |
|
15 |
Denmark |
In force + Protocol |
4 Dec 1970 |
|
16 |
Egypt |
In force |
14 Apr 1997 |
|
17 |
Fiji |
In force |
19 Dec 1995 |
|
18 |
Finland |
In force |
28 Mar 1984 |
|
19 |
France |
In force + Protocols |
24 Apr 1975 |
|
20 |
Germany |
In force |
23 Feb 2010 |
|
21 |
Hong Kong (China) |
In force |
25 Apr 2012 |
|
22 |
Hungary |
In force |
22 May 1989 |
|
23 |
India |
In force (latest treaty) |
9 May 2012 |
|
24 |
Indonesia |
In force + Protocol |
12 Sep 1991 |
|
25 |
Iran |
In force + Protocol |
11 Nov 1992 |
|
26 |
Ireland |
In force + Protocol |
28 Nov 1998 |
|
27 |
Italy |
In force |
28 Jan 1984 |
|
28 |
Japan |
In force + Protocol |
19 Feb 1999 |
|
29 |
Jordan |
In force |
2 Oct 1994 |
|
30 |
Kazakhstan |
In force |
26 Jun 2006 |
|
31 |
Korea (Republic) |
In force |
20 Apr 1982 |
|
32 |
Kuwait |
In force |
5 Feb 2003 |
|
33 |
Kyrgyz Republic |
In force |
17 Nov 2000 |
|
34 |
Laos |
In force |
3 Jun 2010 |
|
35 |
Lebanon |
In force |
20 Jan 2003 |
|
36 |
Luxembourg |
In force |
21 Nov 2002 |
|
37 |
Malta |
In force |
3 Oct 1995 |
|
38 |
Mauritius |
In force |
23 Aug 1992 |
|
39 |
Mongolia |
In force |
27 Jul 1995 |
|
40 |
Morocco |
In force |
2 Jul 2001 |
|
41 |
Myanmar |
In force |
9 Mar 1998 |
|
42 |
Namibia |
In force |
28 Jul 1998 |
|
43 |
Netherlands |
In force + Protocols |
7 Mar 1988 |
|
44 |
New Zealand |
In force + Protocols |
19 Mar 1976 |
|
45 |
Norway |
In force |
23 Dec 1970 |
|
46 |
Pakistan |
In force |
29 May 1982 |
|
47 |
Papua New Guinea |
In force |
20 May 1993 |
|
48 |
Philippines |
In force |
27 Apr 1982 |
|
49 |
Poland |
In force |
8 Jul 2013 |
|
50 |
Qatar |
In force + Protocol |
3 Jul 2008 |
|
51 |
Romania |
In force |
26 Nov 1982 |
|
52 |
Russia |
In force |
31 Jul 1987 |
|
53 |
San Marino |
In force |
19 Nov 2009 |
|
54 |
Saudi Arabia |
In force |
31 Jan 2006 |
|
55 |
Seychelles |
In force |
3 Dec 2003 |
|
56 |
Singapore |
In force |
5 Oct 2004 |
|
57 |
Slovak Republic |
In force |
25 May 2015 |
|
58 |
South Africa |
In force + Protocol |
26 Jul 2005 |
|
59 |
Spain |
In force |
24 May 2006 |
|
60 |
Sri Lanka |
In force |
16 Sep 1997 |
|
61 |
Sudan |
In force |
7 Oct 1993 |
|
62 |
Sweden |
In force + Notes of Exchange |
12 Mar 2002 |
|
63 |
Switzerland |
In force |
30 Dec 1974 |
|
64 |
Syrian Arab Republic |
In force |
26 Feb 2007 |
|
65 |
Thailand |
In force + Protocol |
29 Mar 1982 |
|
66 |
Türkiye |
In force + Protocol |
27 Sep 1994 |
|
67 |
Turkmenistan |
In force |
19 Nov 2008 |
|
68 |
Ukraine |
In force |
4 Aug 2016 |
|
69 |
United Arab Emirates |
In force |
28 Nov 1995 |
|
70 |
United Kingdom |
In force + Protocols |
10 Dec 1996 |
|
71 |
Uzbekistan |
In force |
6 Oct 1997 |
|
72 |
Venezuela |
In force |
28 Aug 2006 |
|
73 |
Vietnam |
In force |
7 Sep 1995 |
|
74 |
Zimbabwe |
In force |
28 Apr 1994 |
Benefits of DTAA for investors and multinationals
The core purpose of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is to prevent the same income from being taxed twice, which can otherwise make cross-border operations costly and complex. By clearly defining where taxes should be paid and at what rate, DTAAs deliver several strategic benefits:
- Encourage foreign direct investment by providing clarity and predictability for cross-border operations.
- Reduce overall tax burdens, including withholding taxes, freeing up capital for reinvestment and expansion.
- Improve tax certainty and align with international standards, minimizing the risk of disputes and prolonged legal uncertainty.
- Enable use of domestic incentives such as participation exemptions in combination with treaty benefits.
Malaysia’s DTAA network is extensive and strategically important. The country has signed 73 comprehensive agreements with jurisdictions across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas, along with several limited treaties covering specific income types. These agreements govern the taxation of business profits, dividends, interest, royalties, and other income streams, ensuring consistent treatment between partner countries.
Key advantages include lower withholding tax rates—which otherwise stand at 15 percent for interest and 10 percent for royalties—reduced under many treaties to as low as 5 percent. DTAAs also define when a foreign company is considered to have a taxable presence (permanent establishment) in Malaysia and provide mechanisms such as tax credits or exemptions to eliminate double taxation.
Together, these features make DTAAs a powerful tool for improving post-tax returns and strengthening Malaysia’s position as a competitive base for regional headquarters and production hubs.
|
Aspect |
Without DTAA |
With DTAA |
|
Withholding Tax on Interest |
15% |
As low as 5% (depending on treaty) |
|
Withholding Tax on Royalties |
10% |
As low as 5% |
|
Tax on Dividends |
Subject to domestic rules |
Often reduced or exempt under treaty provisions |
|
Double taxation risk |
High – income taxed in both Malaysia and home country |
Eliminated via tax credit or exemption in home country |
|
Permanent establishment rules |
Determined solely by domestic law |
Clearly defined in treaty, reducing uncertainty |
|
Dispute resolution |
Limited options, potential for prolonged litigation |
Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) for resolving disputes |
|
Tax certainty |
Low – higher compliance risk |
High – predictable and transparent tax treatment |
|
Investor appeal |
Lower – higher effective tax burden |
Higher – improved post-tax returns and planning certainty |
How DTAs work in practice for foreign investors
Malaysia offers two primary mechanisms to relieve double taxation:
- Bilateral Tax Credit: When a DTAA exists between Malaysia and the investor’s home country, the foreign tax paid can be credited against Malaysian tax on the same income. The credit is limited to the lower of the foreign tax paid or the Malaysian tax payable on that income.
- Unilateral Tax Credit: For jurisdictions without a DTAA, Malaysia still provides relief under domestic law. In such cases, a unilateral credit is granted, typically capped at 50 percent of the foreign tax paid, ensuring some mitigation even in the absence of a treaty
To claim these credits, taxpayers must meet strict compliance standards:
- Proof of foreign tax paid, such as official tax receipts or assessments from the foreign jurisdiction.
- Timely filing: Claims must be submitted within two years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
- Supporting documents: Certificate of residence, income statements, and any documentation requested by the Inland Revenue Board (IRB).
How to apply for DTA benefits in Malaysia
- Verify that a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) exists between Malaysia and the investor’s home country.
- Review the treaty provisions to understand applicable withholding tax rates and conditions.
- Secure an official Certificate of Residence from the home-country tax authority to prove tax residency status.
- Complete Malaysia’s prescribed DTA application forms (available via the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia, IRB).
- Attach the Certificate of Residence and any supporting documents requested by the IRB.
- Submit the application before the taxable payment is due or within the IRB’s stipulated timeframe.
- Timely submission ensures the treaty rate applies at source, reducing withholding tax immediately.
- If forms are late or incomplete, the default domestic withholding tax rate will apply.
- Retroactive adjustments are generally not guaranteed, so compliance with deadlines is critical.
Mutual Agreement Procedure
When cross-border tax friction arises, Malaysia leans on the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) embedded in its double tax agreements to broker practical, negotiated solutions rather than leaving taxpayers trapped between contesting jurisdictions. The Malaysian Inland Revenue Board (IRB or LHDN) treats MAP as a central, taxpayer-facing channel: it accepts MAP requests where a treaty partner’s action (or inaction) produces double taxation or otherwise frustrates the treaty’s intent, and it actively engages the foreign competent authority to seek an agreed outcome.
Procedurally, MAP in Malaysia is designed to be accessible and to cover the full range of treaty disputes — including transfer-pricing and attribution cases — provided the taxpayer’s case falls within the scope and time limits of the relevant treaty. In practice, that means taxpayers typically invoke MAP after exhausting domestic remedies (or in parallel where treaties allow), and the Malaysian competent authority coordinates with its counterpart(s) to resolve the issue by negotiation, arbitration (where the treaty contains a binding arbitration clause), or by crafting an administrative solution that removes the double charge. The IRB’s MAP Guidelines and recent FAQs clarify filing steps, documentation expectations and that many Malaysia treaties impose a three-year time limit to submit a MAP request unless the treaty specifies otherwise.
MAP is not just for reactive dispute resolution; it is also the natural complement to advance certainty mechanisms — most notably Advance Pricing Arrangements (APAs). Malaysia’s MAP framework expressly contemplates that APAs can be negotiated bilaterally or multilaterally through the competent authorities under treaty MAP provisions. In other words, where a multinational group seeks price certainty up front for intercompany transactions touching multiple treaty partners, Malaysia can coordinate with other jurisdictions to deliver matching rulings, reducing the risk of later transfer-pricing adjustments that would trigger MAP disputes.
The IRB replaced prior APA rules with the Income Tax (Advance Pricing Arrangement) Rules 2023 and published updated APA Guidelines in April 2024, tightening process requirements while clarifying timelines, fees and documentation standards for unilateral, bilateral and multilateral APAs.
FAQs: Malaysia's Double Tax Avoidance Arrangement (DTAA)
What types of income are covered by Malaysia’s DTAs?
Malaysia’s DTAs generally cover the full range of cross-border income categories, including business profits, dividends, interest, royalties, technical service fees, and income from employment. They also set out rules on taxing capital gains, shipping and air transport, and in some cases pensions. The precise scope depends on the specific treaty, but the core aim is consistent: to prevent the same income from being taxed twice by both Malaysia and the treaty partner country.
How do I claim foreign tax credit under a Malaysian DTA?
If you are a Malaysian tax resident and have paid tax on foreign-sourced income in a treaty partner country, you may be entitled to a credit against your Malaysian tax liability. To claim this, you must submit proof of foreign tax paid — usually in the form of a certificate or official receipt — when filing your Malaysian tax return. The Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia (LHDN) will grant a credit up to the amount of Malaysian tax payable on that income. If the foreign tax exceeds the Malaysian liability, the excess generally cannot be refunded or carried forward.
Does Malaysia tax foreign dividends?
As of January 2022, foreign-sourced income received in Malaysia — including dividends — is taxable unless specifically exempted. However, relief may be available under a DTA if the income has already been taxed abroad. In practice, the availability of an exemption or foreign tax credit depends on both Malaysia’s domestic law at the time and the wording of the relevant treaty. Multinationals often rely on advance guidance or planning to ensure double taxation is avoided.
What if my country doesn’t have a DTA with Malaysia?
In the absence of a DTA, there is no treaty-based mechanism to limit double taxation. This means Malaysian domestic tax rules apply in full, and any relief for foreign taxes paid depends solely on Malaysia’s unilateral provisions. For businesses and individuals in non-treaty jurisdictions, this can result in a heavier overall tax burden. In such cases, proactive tax planning — or structuring cross-border activity through a treaty jurisdiction — is often considered.
How do MLI anti-abuse provisions affect treaty benefits?
Malaysia has adopted the OECD’s Multilateral Instrument (MLI), which overlays many of its existing treaties with anti-abuse measures. Chief among these is the Principal Purpose Test (PPT), which denies treaty benefits if obtaining that benefit was one of the principal purposes of an arrangement or transaction, unless granting the benefit is consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty. In practice, this means taxpayers must be able to demonstrate commercial substance and genuine business rationale for their structures; “treaty shopping” arrangements are unlikely to succeed.

