The supplier or the transferee who uses the tax credit as compensation is considered jointly and severally liable with the beneficiary of the deduction, if he has acted with willful misconduct or gross negligence, while the hypothesis of slight negligence is irrelevant. It is a matter of willful misconduct, when the transferee is aware of the non-existence of the credit, and gross negligence, when the transferee has omitted, in “macroscopic” terms, the diligence required, as in the case in which the purchase of credits is carried out in absence of required documentation. The Revenue Agency clarifies this in a circular on the amendments to the Superbonus of the dl Aid bis. The circular describes some “exemplary and non-exhaustive” hypotheses in which willful misconduct and gross negligence exist. The fraud occurs “when the transferee is aware of the non-existence of the credit, as for example in the case in which the latter has previously agreed with the alleged original beneficiary the methods of generation and use of the same or if the fictitious nature of the credit is manifestly evident at a first examination, by anyone conducted, and nevertheless the transferee proceeds in any case to the acquisition and compensation of the same in the F24 form, drawing an undue tax benefit related to the non-existent credit “. Gross negligence occurs “when the transferee has omitted, in” macroscopic “terms, the required diligence, such as, for example, in the event that the purchase of the receivables was carried out in the absence of documentation required to support them or in the presence of a clear contradiction in the documentation produced by the transferor (for example, in the event that the sworn statement refers to a property other than the one subject to the facilitated interventions) “. The circular also comments on the changes introduced at the time of the conversion of the Aid decree, regarding the possibility for banks to transfer credits to “account holders” (other than consumers or users), without prejudice to the prohibition for the current account holder who is transferee of the credit to operate further disposals. The Agency also clarifies how to remedy in case of communication delays. In fact, it is possible to make use, under certain conditions, of the “remission in bonis”, an institution that allows the communication to be sent until November 30, 2022, by paying an amount equal to the minimum amount of the established penalty. The circular contains useful information in the event that errors have been made in the communication of the option sent. In particular, if the error in the communication is formal, for example the cadastral data or the progress of the work have been reported incorrectly, it is sufficient to send a report via pec. If, on the other hand, the error is substantial, that is, if it affects essential elements of the assigned credit, it is possible to send a substitute communication by the fifth day of the month following the one in which it was sent. Those who do not meet certain criteria will be more subject to tax credit checks. In the circular on the Aid-bis dl, the Revenue Agency provides some specifications on the obligations of the purchasers of tax credits, establishing “diligence ratios”, that is, criteria that, if respected, exclude checks on building bonuses, on the contrary could lead to more effective controls. Among the criteria the income inconsistency, the inconsistency between the credit value and the financial profile of the customer, the disproportion between the amount of receivables sold and the value of the real estate unit and the failure to carry out the work.
REPRODUCTION RESERVED © Copyright ANSA