There are two different schools of thought regarding the exact indication of the stamp duty on the invoice paid together with the remuneration paid in the course of 2021 to subjects under a subsidized tax regime. The analysis of the practice and a third extreme solution.
We are now close to the deadline for the delivery of the 2022 Single Certification model to the recipient subjects to whom they were paid fees for performances during the year 2021 and still today the doubt about the correct compilation of the model grips many operators.
There confusionhowever, it reigns supreme over some passages, even secondary ones, of fulfillment.
It generates a paradox: the fear of making a mistake leads to unraveling an aspect of taxation that in a normal country should be almost automatic.
2022 Single Certification: how to indicate the stamp duty on the invoice of the lump sum?
But returning to the point under consideration regarding the correct certification of remuneration the Single Certification model provides for a large series of codes with which to indicate the amounts paid not subject to withholding.
This year, moreover, they have been established further codes different from those used until last year.
Those that interest us are the following:
- 22in the case of disbursement of exempt income or of sums that do not constitute income;
- 24in the case of fees, not subject to withholding taxpaid to subjects in flat rate scheme referred to in Article 1 of Law 190/2014.
A clarification before continuing: these two codes are to use instead of respectively codes 8 and 12 now replaced.
If there is no problem with the second, which has been eliminated, code 8 is still listed with another function.
L’possible error in its use, therefore, it may not be detected by the control procedures, so it is necessary to be careful.
Returning to the analysis, theobligation to stamp the document it is borne by the subject who prepares it, starting from this assumption many indicating the amount of the stamp in the CUincluding it among the remuneration paid to the professional on a flat-rate basis. In the opinion of the writer, this is an incorrect solution.
How to indicate the stamp duty in the 2022 Single Certification for flat rate subjects
With the code 24 in fact theindication of “Fees” and not of sums of another nature, which at most can be considered as an accessory element to the main charge. Accessory, therefore, to the remuneration paid to the professional, but not part of the same.
An extract from the resolution 444 / E of November 18, 2008:
“… The same conclusion is valid in the event that the stamp duty has been explicitly passed on to the client by the professional and highlighted separately in the invoice or receipt; as specified by the writer with the resolution of 14 July 1995 n. 199, nothing prevents, in fact, that the amount of the tax due by the professional in relation to the document issued to the client is charged to the latter in addition to the professional fee. Even in this case, the tax, charged separately in the invoice or receipt issued, can be considered an accessory cost to the professional service and be counted in the determination of the deductible charge “.
From this passage it emerges that theRevenue Agency consider the stamp as one tax added to the remuneration separately indicated and not item itself.
In the light of what has been highlighted, in the opinion of the writer, even in the case of stamp duty charged on the invoices issued by subjects who apply the flat-rate regime referred to in law 190 2014, it is more correct to include the amount among “Sums that do not constitute income” which code 22.
Indeed, assuming that the charge of the stamp duty is not strictly speaking an advance “In the name and on behalf”which in compiling the CU “… point 4 must indicate the gross amount of the remuneration paid, net of any VAT due”that stamp duty is an alternative to VAT as a result of the provisions of Article 6 of Table Annex B to Presidential Decree 642/72 and ofarticle 7, paragraph 5 of law 405/1990 it could be argued that, by analogy, the same treatment as for VAT should be applied, and therefore the sums would not even be indicated in the CU.
We would enter, however, in a context of “Tax extremism”.