Superbonus and other construction benefits: in addition to scams, there are system problems, which concern banks and the state

Superbonus, in the jungle of building tax breaks the real problems are under the surface of the scams and concern the State

It’s easy to say Super bonusscams, lack of controls and to draw conclusions. The reality of tax deductions related to building renovations in its recent evolution it is much more complex than politicians and lobbyists portray it. And understanding what they’re talking about isn’t easy if you don’t know the subject. On the one hand, in fact, there is the aspect technical, building or energy that characterizes the intervention. The simpler it is, the easier the scams are. On the other there is that financial: an account is to sell a tax credit after having paid for the jobs out of your own pocket and one thing is to get a loan to do the work and guarantee it with the credit that will be created after the works. Around everything there is a fundamental actor, the debtor, lo Statewhich has everything to lose from trade in credits.

That of the tax credit market it has been a debated topic for many years: on the one hand it should have unlock construction, on the other hand, every time it was set in motion it was resolved in a stalemate because there was no possibility of exchange between private individuals. Then came the bonus facades who did a bit of a ram and went under the radar due to the outbreak of the pandemic. Introduced with the budget for 2020, in its original version it provided for the possibility of being given back by the state even the 90% – as opposed to 50% of normal renovations – of the money spent on the works sustained to fix the facade of the buildings. Not just the color, but also balconiestinsmiths, scaffoldingremoval of rubble, technical expenses. It is true there was also the coat, that is the thermal coating of the building subject to very stringent parameters, then merged into 110%. But most of the interventions covered by the bonus did not require particular technical characteristics or certifications and sworn translations. Rarely even one building practice. The only impediment was that the changes were visible from the street and that the building was not found in suburbs. No spending cap and no certification to show except for energy redevelopment costs.

In short, the Bengodi, which initially very few took advantage of because as soon as the standard was approved there was the lockdown. Then many noticed it. It is no coincidence that 46% of the scams attributable to the trade of tax credits are related to the bonus facade which in theory could be disguised by anyone with an open construction site. Let alone scam professionals who are never lacking in Italy. For the same reason, the concessions for the normal renovations of the first house for which there is an expenditure ceiling of 96 thousand euros, but no special certifications are required apart from the building practice. 110%, on the other hand, is another planet and is abnormal not only in terms of the size of the tax credit it generates, but also in terms of certifications and sworn statements to be produced. In fact, it exclusively concerns interventions on the energy saving (insulation of the roof, coat, boiler, windows, photovoltaic, etc) which have always been the subject of specific certifications to which the gluttonous facility has added a sort of initial and final appraisal by a qualified technician, as well as aassertionand of the construction manager and one of the tax advisor. All responsible and / or liable for any incorrect or false statements.

In practice, in order to collect the 110% credit, you have to deliver a stack of documents that is the envy of a notary. Not to mention that the work plan it must respect a very specific schedule and stay within predefined price ceilings. A game that would be worth the candle anyway, if it weren’t for the fact that the Italian condominiums went crazy and started making interventions that were not always necessary, but that being in fact free it was a shame not to do them. And so businesses have gone haywire and can’t keep up with demand.

In all this the banking system he found the deal by developing financial products to get the customer to do the work with interest and then buy the credit. Which is certain only if the works respond to the requests of the state. So all the practices are subjected to apreventive analysis by consulting multinationals. Not only that, in most cases the institutions make the customer sign one release that it binds it in the event that the credit is not recognized by the Revenue Agency for any reason. It being understood that the customer must be able to pay back the institution who financed the work in case there are problems with the congruity with respect to the bonus parameters. In other words, no bank finances 110% of the work to people who would not be able to pay for it themselves. Hence the mythical controls of the credit system.

The speech of Italian post who has staked a lot on the direct purchase of credits, that is, he bought the credit from those who had financed the work himself by anticipating the money that the citizen or company would have collected in five-year installments from the State by putting it in the tax return. A trade also made by the other banks but they gave funding priority because they are more profitable. The investigation in this case was the same that is carried out in the tax return: we await the ok from theRevenue Agency who receives the statement of credit transfer from the taxpayer and any documentation already in the possession of the Agency, at least for the accounting part since electronic invoices and so-called talking transfers. This is because it is “only” a matter of anticipating the credit that the State normally gives back in a number of years (5 for 110% and 10 for the others).

And here we come to the reasons of the state. On the one hand, there are checks that can be done within ten years, like the same Revenue Agency had pointed out a ilfattoquotidiano.it at the end of 2020 when this newspaper had questioned precisely on the quality control of credits and in particular on those accrued without certifications and sworn translations, i.e. the bonus facade. When asked: “Do you also confirm that the credit creation procedure and its monetization is automatic after sending the appropriate form to the agency?”, The answer was that “the procedure is online and automatic … then the times and controls are another story ”.

Another point that is not secondary and well known to the State Accounting as for Minister Franco, as well as most likely the head of government, it is that the tax credits thus monetized are no longer probable / possible debts of the State towards citizens and / or companies, which over the canonical ten years of collection in the tax return they may lose the right to receive them, but they become certain and immediately liquidable. And this can be a problem, even a serious one, for the public purse.

–