The joint current account is not exempt from careful checks by the tax authorities but an important sentence comes from the Court of Cassation.
Current accounts are constantly checked by the tax authorities in order to identify suspicious transactions that suggest a failure to return all the income received. In the event of checks that give rise to doubts, the Revenue Agency may ask explanations to the taxpayer who will have to justify the movements on the account. The documentation supporting the evidence attesting to the use of regularly registered money will be carefully examined by the tax authorities. This applies to ordinary citizens but to a greater extent for entrepreneurs, professionals and self-employed workers.
Joint current account, what could happen
In case of joint current account it could happen that only one of the holders pays money while the second holder deals exclusively with withdrawals. Consider, for example, the case of an entrepreneur whose wife is a housewife. The income will turn out to be only from the husband but the spouse uses the same account. In this case, the joint current account is considered as “for family use”.
At the basis of the checks, therefore, there must be one presumption of communion which can be denied only in the event that totally opposite movements are ascertained, serious and irrefutable signs of attempts to evade the law.
Read also >>> Joint account, the 730 model changes: what taxpayers will find
The case: an entrepreneur with three accounts, one of which is jointly owned
The Court of Cassation has expressed a sentence in relation to the case of an entrepreneur with three current accounts, one of which is jointly held with his wife. That account was regarded as intended for family use. The accused had to provide all documentation certifying the non-taxability of money movements. He also had to prove that some money shifts from the two personal accounts to the joint account were linked to the need to feed the “well” in common with his wife.
The Supreme Court held the motivations of the entrepreneur are valid justifying the movements as fundamental to the well-being of the family. He then asked the judges to carry out further investigations on the matter under consideration. Now the tax commission will have to assess whether the expenses declared as necessary for the ordinary and extraordinary needs for the sustenance of the family are really such.
–
