Super Bonus 110 percentclarifications of the Revenue Agency continue on various aspects of the facilitation, including i spending limits.

The central issue is the existence of Hardware. The same or not counted in Calculation?

In this regard, the clarifications in Reply to question number 780 On November 16, 2021.

The case relates to the work carried out in the complex Three independent villas Stacked with Class A / 2 with three special devices, which form Structural buildings.

The Revenue Agency states that the limit to be considered is €576,000, i.e. 96,000 euros multiplied by the number of building units.

Other than that, it was pronounced, less than 10 days ago, in Reply to question No. 765Which modified the previous issue 568, which was published last summer.

The case concerned one real estate unit with two appendices: the Revenue Agency retrace its steps explaining that not 3 real estate units but only one unit should be considered, with Therefore, accessories are excluded from the calculation.

Superbonus 110, but do devices count or not in calculating spending limits?

Undo the threads related to the functions in the file Maximum expense calculator Regarding interventions the 110 percent super reward is not an easy task.

The complexity of the situation is “clarifications” From a revenue agency that, in some cases, is at risk raise more suspicion.

the last one there Reply to question number 780 November 16, 2021 for Revenue Agency.

Revenue Agency – Response to Interrogation No. 780 of November 16, 2021

Superbonus – Implementation of anti-seismic interventions on a complex of terraced houses, expenditure limits, changes in installations – Article 119 of the Decree-Law May 19, 2020, No. 34.

In the said case, the petitioner turns to the Finance Department to find out if the work performed on a owned building falls within the concession and what criteria should be used for Spending Limit Calculation of the discount introduced by the restart decree.

The real estate unit, functionally independent and for residential use, is equipped with Relevant cadastral category C/6.

The house is listed and fit in a A complex of terraced houses, consisting of three housing units of three different owners, which were configured to be a structural condominium.

The petitioner specifies that the complex in question consists of condominiums and requests information about the possibility of benefiting from the super bonus and about spending limits for Interventions to reduce earthquake risk which fall within the sismabonus to 110 percent.

After recalling the relevant legislation and relevant practice documents, the Revenue Agency expresses positivelyAccess to construction subsidies.

Regarding the account Maximum discount spending limitsThe document reads as follows:

“With regard to the spending limit allowed in the Superbonus, it should be noted that since this is a condominium-related intervention… … for seismic risk reduction interventions that define a transition to one or two classes of low seismic risk, which has been Realized on the common parts of the premises, the discount is applied to an amount of expenses not exceeding 96,000 euros multiplied by the number of real estate units in the building “

The document continues by stating that the maximum amount of eligible expenses is determined by Number of real estate units of which the building is composed, taking into account also the relevant aspects.

In conclusion, the Revenue Agency asserts that:

“In the present case, therefore, the maximum allowable expenditure of seismic risk reduction interventions would be equal to €576,000.00 (€96.000 x 6)”.

Taking into account the concrete case, therefore, The accessories are included within the real estate units that make up the building and are relevant in calculating the maximum support expenditures.

Superbonus 110 percent, accessories are not counted into the account

In a seemingly paradoxical way, the same revenue agency expressed itself less than 10 days ago in Reply to question No. 765 From 9 November 2021.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that this response modified previous clarifications of Reply to Question No. 568, published last summer.

At the heart of the patch there is a special devices.

But let’s take a step back. In each of the practice documents are taken into account The same concrete caseA building consisting of a stacked apartment block A/3, two appliances, a garage (C/6) and a warehouse (C/2).

The taxpayer intends to do business Seismic optimization and energy efficiency, to bring about a change in the intended use of the warehouse, and to create an additional Class A/3 residential real estate unit.

In the first practice document, the one that came out last summer, the instructions invited us to consider Multiply the maximum amounts by three.

On the other hand, the second practice document goes back to the previous clarification and emphasizes the following:

“Above Circular No. 24/E of 2020 clarified that the discount is due in respect of interventions carried out, among other things, on single-family residential buildings and related facilities (whether driving or towing) whose spending limits for each intervention refer to the individual property and its accessories as a unit, even if they are stacked separately.”

In other words, Accessories will be excluded from the account As it is considered a complete real estate unit for residential use.

Regarding the specific case, the new clarification is expressed as follows:

“With reference to the current situation regarding a single family apartment building where the applicant is co-owner of a building consisting of a stacked dwelling unit and two devices, therefore, the expenditure limit available for anti-seismic interventions is equal to €96000 given the one housing unit with the two attached real estate units (consistently, Of course, with all the requirements and obligations stipulated in the relevant legislation that are not the subject of this application).

What drives Inland Revenue to consider accessories at Calculate eligible expense limits?

What factors justify the difference in treatment between the answer to question No. 780 of November 16, 2021 and No. 765 of November 9, 2021 (which also interferes with answer 568 of the same year, modifying its interpretation)?

Super Bonus 110 percent, is there a need for new clarifications?

In general, it is good to remember that responses to an appeal by a revenue agency have value Only with reference to the issue in question.

However, clarifications are provided Important information for all topics Participate in the operations related to the facilities provided by the restart decree.

To make it clear they could be New ad necessary By the revenue agency, able to detect the tuft.

Clarity inApply the rules It is, in fact, a prerequisite to allow all those who intend to carry out interventions facilitated using the 110 percent super reward, to do so with full knowledge of the facts.

Uncertainty about calculating the discount ceiling can actually cause many people Choose not to start work In any case, it makes it difficult for those who have already planned or started the interventions.

Doubts about the spending limit are actually part of a Really complicated picture.

With the Budget Law 2022, which began its parliamentary process from the Senate, news of the time extension of the concession is expected.

Government bill confirms Extension of housing units and public housing until 2023, whereas as of December 31, 2022 only for single-family homes and homes, according to new ISEE requirements of €25,000.

The anti-fraud ordinance also strengthened the revenue agency’s controls. Commitment Compliance visa Also for direct use of the super bonus, as a discount.

There is, therefore, to complicate the situation More news soon over a maxi building allowance, which adds to an already very complex regulatory framework.