Tax abolition yes, but not for everyone. That’s the one who’s left out

by Angelo Lucarella, a lawyer specializing in tax disputes And image protection

In a country like Italy it would be good manners Do the standard firstthen announce its effects.

In the event of an extension of the famous tax abolition we are faced with an unusual fact: the Ministry of Economy published the press release n. 68 of April 21 last year, which alerted Italian taxpayers to the decision to extend the deadline for submitting declarations of accession to the special simplified definition procedure according to the Budget Law 2023 n. to be extended by two months in 2023. 197/2022. This extension, registered by the MEF, would mean that art. 1, paragraph 235, in force to date (see the normative.it website of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers), sets April 30, 2023 as the deadline for the so-called expressions of will of taxpayers.

One might wonder where the problem lies, considering that the government (in return) also subsequently issued Communiqué No. 1. 33, with which he justifies the decision made in the CdM on May 4 last year. There is a but, a big but.

While many have acknowledged the government’s decision extend the deadline for scrapping (with effects on the one hand retrospective – regenerative and on the other hand for future use) It is good to consider that the official text of the Palazzo Chigi communiqué contains one likely consolidation of unequal treatment of pre-2000 claims; Receivables, the latter which are expected to be renewed over time with statutes of limitations suspended by the tax authorities, otherwise they would all be deleted from the public accounts for being uncollectible.

However, we read in the press release mentioned above: “With regard to the easier determination of the fees entrusted to the collection agencies, it is intended that the settlement of the debts resulting from the individual charges entrusted to the collection agencies, from 1.1. 2000 to 30.06.2022… omitted”.

The reflections that need to be made in terms of accounting and public finances are ongoing Why exclude what matured before the new millennium? Considering that those who have a tax liability that is dated over a longer period of time will not The same benefits can be enjoyed by those who later accumulated the debt themselves?

A half-answer could result from the fact that the abolition rule (and in fact also the one on the balance sheet and removal of the Conte 1 government and the one on the cancellation of residual amounts of up to a thousand euros) at least implies three ratings.

The first is that only I can be subject to the procedure Tax debts to be “entrusted” to debt collection agencies in the 2000/2022 period.

The second is a consequence of the first: exempted are not only those who accumulated debt before the year 2000, but also those whose tax debts were “trusted” to the collection agency after June 2022.

The third is regulatory in nature, in the sense that the institution of accountability has been linked to the famous roles (which then flow into the dreaded payment folders). Reorganized in the late 1990s (Think of Legislative Decrees 46/1999 and 112/1999 which amended Presidential Decree 602/1973).

So the government (and legislatures in the broadest sense) may not be entirely wrong in stating that the abolition must apply to tasks coming into effect from the year 2000 onwards.

However, a question arises that has no answer either in the legal texts in force, in the debate or in the political declarations on the subject.

Why should the parameter of assignment be used and not that of existence and/or pending tax liability as such?

This question needs to be answered as the subject of public revenue through loss of tax revenue is the relationship between taxation and collection. nothing else.

Excluding a number of taxpayers, hypothetically representing a certain amount of uncollected tax items, from elimination means that the state (particularly in percentage formulas) must also forego the replenishment of funds associated with the fighttax evasion and the reduction of relative pressure (see, for example, Article 41 of Legislative Decree 48/2023, which came into force on May 4 last year). For public finances, registering credit items to citizens costs more than government debt, assuming that keeping certain tax items in government accounting records feeds the amount that Europe itself asks of us and to which we as a country relate to us trust and appreciate the three-year plans of the stability programs (not least those of the Department of Defense a few weeks ago). A dog chasing its tail? Not quite, but almost. In the background, the Constitution remains alert.