Superbonus 110%, with building abuse incentive at risk

The Simplification Decree (or PNRR Governance Decree) has brought important “Simplification measures on incentives for energy efficiency”, intervening in particular on art. 119 of the Relaunch Decree (Legislative Decree 34/2020). This is, writes studiocataldi.it, the rule that governs the so-called Superbonus 110%, an incentive measure that aims to make homes more efficient and safer, raising the deduction rate for expenses related to specific interventions to 110%. in the field of energy efficiency, anti-seismic interventions, installation of photovoltaic systems or infrastructures for recharging electric vehicles in buildings The deduction can be requested for documented expenses which remain to be paid by the taxpayer incurred from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2022 (although an extension to 2023 is being studied) to be divided among the entitled parties in five annual installments of the same amount and in four annual installments of the same amount for the part of the expenditure incurred in the year 2022. art. 33 of the Simplifications Decree, in the part in which it has completely replaced paragraph 13-ter of art. 119 of the Relaunch Decree, a provision containing a sort of “amnesty” for building abuses; in reality it would not seem like this at all, especially if one looks carefully at the final letter of the law, which has not implemented some of the clarifications contained in the first draft of the decree. 110% Superbonus interventions: CILA is sufficient The renewed paragraph 13-ter simplifies the discipline to benefit from the subsidy, establishing that the interventions referred to in the 110% Superbonus, with the exception of those involving the demolition and reconstruction of buildings, constitute extraordinary maintenance and can be carried out by means of a sworn commencement notice (CILA). In particular, through the CILA it will be possible to certify the details of the qualification that provided for the construction of the property subject to intervention or the provision that allowed its legitimacy or will attesting that the construction was completed on a date prior to September 1, 1967.The major novelty introduced by the DL is that, clearly expressed, according to which the presentation of the CILA will not require certification of the legitimate status referred to in art. 9-bis, paragraph 1-bis, of Presidential Decree 380/2001 (Consolidated Building Act). The no longer necessary certification of the legitimate status was provided precisely in order to avoid the difficulties of finding this documentation in times compatible with the use of the Superbonus. of the provision that allowed its legitimacy and so on, in any case there is a risk of forfeiture of the tax benefit pursuant to art. 49 of the Consolidated Building Act, but this will only happen in a series of specific cases. Forfeiture of the tax benefit In particular, the forfeiture of the tax benefit provided for by art. 49 cit., Reads in the Legislative Decree, operates exclusively in the following cases: a) non-presentation of CILA; b) interventions carried out in deviation from CILA; c) absence of the qualification which required the construction of the property subject to intervention or the provision that allowed the legitimation or the certificate that the construction was completed on a date prior to September 1, 1967; d) non-correspondence to the truth of the certificates provided for the Superbonus pursuant to art. 119, paragraph 14 of the Relaunch Decree. However, the same rule underlines that “any evaluation of the legitimacy of the property subject to intervention” remains unaffected, further proof that the provision does not intend to facilitate illegal activities.