Superbonus 110%, are there any risks?

Superbonus 110% with deduction of expenses for the renovation of buildings, with new, more ecological houses and for a cost that would border on zero. But is it all that simple or are there risks behind the incentive? And these risks could create serious problems for those who decide to use them? To answer is the legal information site ‘The law for all’, which lists several, namely the risk of having to pay for the work, that linked to the discount on the invoice, that of not being able to do the work and, finally, that linked to a wrong energy assessment. Let’s see what it is in detail. “One of the risks that lie behind the 110% super bonus is that of staying on foot at a certain point and having to pay for the works that have been started thinking of improving their property for free from an energy point of view. This – we read – it is a concrete risk that the owners of the houses already run today, that is, those who do not own an apartment in a condominium. Someone (perhaps the Budget law, when it is approved in Parliament) will have to clarify what will happen to those who live in a house on their own, a month ago he started the procedure for jobs that fall within the superbonus and has just discovered that from 2022, if he does not have an ISEE up to 25 thousand euros, he will lose the benefit. Either pay everything in advance by December 31st or the expenses that will support in the new year they will not be able to be deducted at 110%. And again: “If there is something that can really appeal to the 110% superbonus it is the possibility of not having to wait years to recover the expenses incurred through the declaration of income, i.e. with the normal tax deduction, but to take advantage of the transfer of the tax credit or the discount on the invoice. Which would allow, at least on paper, to do the work almost for free (the transfer of credit has its cost, albeit low). It can happen, however, that once the interventions have started, the company goes bankrupt. And here would open a very delicate chapter for the taxpayer “. For the experts, therefore,” we need to take a step back. The Revenue Agency, to apply the superbonus, refers to the contract signed between the client (that is to say, the taxpayer who entrusts the work) and the company, or general contractor if you prefer. In order to benefit from the maxi-facilitation, you need the asseveration of a qualified technician who certifies the real energy savings derived from the works and the jump of two energy classes (or one, if the double step is impossible to do) required by the legislation. . In the unfortunate event that the company were to go bankrupt and the content of the certification was not respected, the Tax Authority would have the power to retaliate against the client for the sums not due. In other words: if the taxpayer and the general contractor have agreed on the discount on the invoice, the client will be required to pay the expenses in full, since the company – which went bankrupt – will not be able to meet its derivative economic commitments. from the discount on the invoice “, they underline. But there is a further risk that would be hidden behind the 110% superbonus, and that is” that of not finding a company willing to carry out interventions related to this benefit. Some building contractors – they explain in fact from the legal information site – have already pointed out that, for him, the game is not worth the candle. The fact is that the 2020 legislation imposes prices not to be exceeded on materials, on the contrary: one of the tasks of the qualified technician who signs the certification is to check that costs remain below the threshold set by the Ministry of Economic Development. What the law does not say – it is stressed again – is how much those materials must be sold to the construction company. It goes without saying that, just to give an example, the manufacturer of the polystyrene used for the building’s thermal insulation could raise its prices. The company would thus find itself significantly reducing or eliminating its profit margin, since it cannot exceed the limit established by the Ministry. If not, even, to get lost. At this point, the entrepreneur prefers to give up and opt for another subsidized job that does not involve these constraints, such as the facade bonus or the simple building renovation “. The alternative, it continues,” would be to pay a part in black: a risk that is not worth taking, given the penalties. It is worth remembering what was said by the Revenue Agency: in the event of violations, the consequences are paid by the holder of the deductions (ie, the taxpayer) and the company, if joint and several liability is established “. Finally, the last consideration on the risks that would be hidden behind the 110% super bonus: “that of starting on the wrong foot, that is, with a wrong energy assessment, made by those who calculated that the interventions would guarantee the double leap in quality required by law and then realize the way doing or at the end of work that will not be so. To avoid making such a gross mistake – the experts recommend -, it is essential to avoid relying on the first one who promises sparks and to give the job to a reliable technician, as well as a qualified one. This is because the evaluation of the energy performance of a building is not so obvious: each property is a case in itself, it is necessary to study and calculate the most efficient insulation and any heat loss from walls and roofs, replacing the boiler may not be sufficient. without the thermal coat, etc. In short, we need a real professional “, concludes The Law for All.