Superbonus 110%: l'Agenzia delle Entrate risponde

DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY PURCHASERS OF SEISMIC-RESISTANT HOUSES (Response no. 325 of 9.9.2020) 

THE QUESTION.A buyer signed a preliminary contract in April 2018 for the purchase of a property to be built by a company. The property in particular is part of a residential complex falling within one of the expected seismic zones subject to conservative rehabilitation, following demolition and reconstruction, with energy efficiency works and achievement of energy class 'A' in compliance with the required seismic safety requirements.

Since the property will be delivered and purchased between November and December 2020, the applicant believes he can benefit from the 110% rate as this relief is also valid for expenses incurred between 1.7.2020 and 31.12.2021, for the purchase of earthquake-proof buildings created through demolition and reconstruction in seismic zones 1, 2 and 3 and to be able to request the selling company to apply the discount to the invoice in alternative to the direct use of the deduction due.

THE SOLUTION. As for the superbonus, the Revenue Agency, recalling the recent practice document (circ. no. 24/E/2020), confirms the application of the increased deduction of 110%, for expenses incurred from July 2020 until 31 December 2021, because «the superbonus also applies to expenses incurred by buyers of the so-called. anti-seismic houses, i.e. real estate units that are part of buildings located in areas classified as seismic risk 1, 2 and 3 and subject to anti-seismic interventions carried out through demolition and reconstruction of the property by construction or property renovation companies which, within 18 months of the completion of the works, arrange for the subsequent resale".

Regarding the second question, also in this case the Agency confirms the option for the discount on the invoice or transfer of the tax credit to subjects other than the company, provided that the request is accompanied by the approval of conformity issued by a professional or by a Caf on the documentation and with the certification of a technician on the adequacy of the expenses incurred in relation to the subsidized interventions. Finally, as regards the possibility of forcing the selling company to recognize the discount on the invoice, the Agency states that the recognition of the discount or the acceptance of the tax credit by the seller is not an obligation and, therefore, falls within the scope of ordinary contractual dynamics and in a commercial agreement.

{gallery}news December 2020{/gallery}

INTERVENTIONS CARRIED OUT ON 'COLLABENT UNITS' (Response no. 326 of 9.9.2020)

THE QUESTION. The owner of a real estate unit registered in the Building Registry in the cadastral category F/2 ('collaborative units') which is not habitable and therefore incapable of producing income, specifies that the property is contiguous to the main residence and together with this it should be the subject of a 'renovation with merger' program, subject to obtaining a specific qualification.

The owner wants to carry out renovation works on both units with the reduction of two classes of seismic risk as well as energy efficiency through the thermal insulation of the walls, the change of the boiler and the heating system, the replacement of the fixtures and the installation of a photovoltaic system with storage, at the end of which, the collapsing unit will be merged with the house.

Given this, the owner believes he can benefit from the Superbonus also with reference to the expenses incurred for the interventions carried out on the F/2 collaborating unit since the aforementioned unit, not being income producing, cannot be considered a 'second home'.

THE SOLUTION. The Revenue Agency reminds you that in the circular. n. 19/E of 8.7.2020, it was reiterated that these deductions are also due for expenses incurred for interventions carried out on properties classified in the cadastral category F/2 ("collaborating units") since, although it is a category referring to buildings that are totally or partially unusable and non-productive of

income, they can be considered as existing buildings, since they are manufactured goods

already built and identified in the land register.

Furthermore, for the purposes of the ecobonus, for collaborating buildings in which the heating system is not functioning, it must be demonstrable that the building is equipped with a heating system that meets the technical characteristics required by Legislative Decree 311/2006 and that this system is located in the environments in which the energy requalification interventions are carried out. In this case, therefore, the Tax Office considered that in compliance with any other condition required by the facilitation law and without prejudice to the fulfillment of any required fulfillment, which are not the subject of this request for ruling, the Applicant can benefit from the superbonus also in relation to the expenses incurred for interventions carried out on buildings classified in the cadastral category F/2 ('collaborating units').

INTERVENTIONS CARRIED OUT ON A PROPERTY ON FREE LOAN FOR USE (Response no. 327 of 9.9.2020)

THE QUESTIONThe resident in a property held with a loan for use contract which is part of a four-family building would like to replace the current heat generator with a heat pump taking advantage of the tax incentives provided by the art. 119 of the Legislative Decree 34/2020.

THE SOLUTION. The Revenue Agency recalls the circular. n. 24/E of 8.8.2020, in which it was specified that for the purposes of the deduction the natural persons who bear the expenses must own or hold the property subject to the intervention on the basis of a suitable title at the time of starting the works or at the time of incurring the expenses, if prior to the aforementioned start. In particular, the beneficiaries must hold the property on the basis of a duly registered rental contract, including financial or loan, and be in possession of consent to the execution of the works by the owner.

In order to guarantee the necessary certainty in tax relations, the lack of a title to hold the property resulting from a registered deed, at the time of starting the works or at the time of incurring the expenses if earlier, precludes the right to deduction even if subsequent regularization is carried out. Having said this, if the property is part of a 'minimum condominium', i.e. a building made up of no more than eight condominiums, the higher rate applies only if the intervention listed above is carried out jointly with at least one of the interventions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 4 of the aforementioned art. 119 carried out on the common parts of the condominium and provided that they ensure, as a whole, the improvement of two energy classes or, where not possible, the achievement of the highest energy class to be demonstrated through the energy performance certificate (APE).

INTERVENTIONS CARRIED OUT ON 'TERRACED HOUSE' (Response no. 328 of 9.9.2020)

THE QUESTIONThe owner of a terraced house (first house), ground floor, with independent heating, free on three sides and bordering another property exclusively through a garage wall (unheated), intends to carry out energy efficiency measures (external coat) which will bring an improvement of two energy classes to the property.

Therefore, according to the applicant, the 'terraced house' can be considered property within a broader concept of 'single-family buildings', thus being able to apply the deductions provided for by the aforementioned Legislative Decree. 34/2020.

THE SOLUTION. The Revenue Agency recalls that the decree provides for the possibility of taking advantage of the superbonus for "functionally independent real estate units and with one or more independent accesses from the outside, located inside multi-family buildings". The rule clarifies that in this case the simultaneous existence of the requirement of functional independence and the presence of independent access from the outside must be verified.

In the presence of the aforementioned requirements and in compliance with any other condition required by the facilitation law and the fulfillment of any required fulfillment, the applicant can benefit from the expenses incurred from the Superbonus for the interventions he intends to carry out, regardless of whether the multi-family building of which these real estate units are part is constituted as a condominium or not.

INTERVENTIONS ON COMMON PARTS RELATED TO SEVERAL REAL ESTATE UNITS DISTINCTLY STACKED (Response no. 329 of 10.9.2020)

THE QUESTION. A person is co-owner with his spouse and his minor children, of the following independently registered real estate units, forming part of the same building: three apartments, a room used as a warehouse, a room used as a garage and a non-registered common property for external courtyard and staircase use, without income and consistency. In the aforementioned real estate units there are parts common to all the aforementioned real estate units such as, for example, rooms for the laundry, for central heating, for drying rooms or for other similar shared services.

Having said this, the co-owner considers the provisions of the superbonus applicable as they would involve interventions on the common parts relating to multiple distinctly registered real estate units, regardless of the existence of a plurality of owners.

THE SOLUTION. According to the Tax Office, the 110% superbonus does not apply to interventions carried out on the common parts of two or more distinctly registered real estate units of a building entirely owned by a single owner or co-owned by several parties.

In fact, taking into account the term used by the legislator which expressly refers to 'condominiums' and not to the 'common parts' of buildings, for the purposes of applying the relief the building subject to the interventions must be constituted as a condominium according to the required civil regulations.

In the present case, therefore, since these are interventions on distinctly registered real estate units, co-owned by several subjects, it will not be possible to benefit from the 110% deduction either with reference to the expenses incurred for interventions carried out on the common service parts of the aforementioned real estate units, nor with reference to the expenses incurred for interventions carried out on the individual real estate units as they are not included in a condominium.

DEDUCTIONS OF THE EXPENSES OF THE THERMAL COAT MADE ONLY ON YOUR HOME (Response no. 408 of 24.9.2020)

THE QUESTION. The owner of an apartment which is part of a four-storey building, with two residential units per floor, points out that the condominium assembly is not interested in carrying out works for energy efficiency through thermal insulation (so-called thermal insulation) of the opaque surfaces of the entire building envelope. However, the assembly granted the condominium owners of the individual residential units, if interested, the right to carry out the intervention only on the opaque surfaces of the perimeter envelope falling within their jurisdiction, subject to authorization from the competent bodies.

The owner therefore asks if he can take advantage of the relief provided for by the aforementioned art. 119 of the "Relaunch Decree", although the intervention, rather than being carried out by the condominium, is carried out by the individual condominium owner on only one part of the external envelope of the property; in particular, if, in the event of denial of the authorization by the competent bodies for the construction of the thermal insulation on only one part of the external casing of the property, he can take advantage of the relief with reference to the thermal insulation created on the casing of the internal walls of the apartment.

THE SOLUTION. Preliminarily, the Revenue Agency highlights that the condominium buildings subject to the interventions must be constituted as condominiums according to the required civil regulations; the qualification of the interventions requires the testing of technical assessments, which go beyond the application scope of the ruling.

Having said this, the Agency believes that the owner can access the 110% deduction for interventions authorized by the condominium assembly, which affect the part of the building envelope that concerns his residential unit. However, two essential constraints must be respected (considering the entire building envelope): the intervention must affect the building envelope with an incidence greater than 25% of the overall gross dispersing surface; the intervention must guarantee the improvement of at least two energy classes of the entire building or, if not possible, the achievement of the highest energy class, to be demonstrated through the energy performance certificate issued by a qualified technician in the form of the sworn declaration.

ACCESS TO THE SUPERBONUS BY A SWISS CROSS-BORDER (Response no. 486 of 10.19.2020)

THE QUESTION. A Swiss cross-border worker with a regular work permit, resident in one of the Italian municipalities within 20 km of the Swiss border, is a 50/50 co-owner of a house with his wife, who is fiscally dependent on him. The Taxpayer highlights that, since the conditions for the application of Article 1 of the Agreement between Italy and Switzerland of 3 October 1974 exist, the taxation of employee income takes place exclusively in Switzerland and that for this reason he is exempt from submitting the tax return in Italy.

Having said this, the Taxpayer asks whether for the works attributable to the aforementioned 110% ecobonus and/or seismabonus concessions, Swiss cross-border workers can also exercise the option provided for by the aforementioned art. 121.

THE SOLUTIONAccording to the Tax Office, the question that arises is therefore whether he can benefit from the relief, not having an income to be "tax-free". Having said that, the Revenue Agency highlighted that the circ. n. 24/E/2020 clarified that, given that "natural persons, outside the exercise of business, arts and professions" activities are identified among the recipients of the superbonus, the deduction in question concerns all taxpayers resident and non-resident in the territory of the State who bear the expenses for the execution of the subsidized interventions.

Based on what has been said, therefore, a taxpayer who owns a house in Italy, and therefore the sole owner of the related land income, is not precluded from accessing the superbonus. Furthermore, it appears from the request that the cross-border worker, although not producing income from work in Italy, as the owner together with his wife of the home, appears to be the owner of the related land income. It follows that being the owner of an income in Italy, in the presence of the requirements and conditions provided by law, he can access the superbonus and in the absence of a gross tax on which to make the 110 percent deduction, he can opt to use the superbonus in one of the alternative methods to the tax deduction provided for by the art. 121 of the “Relaunch decree.

THERMAL INSULATION OF THE ROOF OF A CONDOMINIUM BUILDING EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP AND INSTALLATION OF A PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM (Response no. 499 of 10.27.2020)

In the response to question no. 499/2020, the Financial Administration addresses the hypothesis of a condominium intervention carried out by the owner of a home to which the exclusively owned flat roof is merged, with a single registration and a single income, to cover the entire building.

In this regard, the Tax Office allows the 110% ecobonus for the thermal insulation of the solar roof of exclusive property, as a 'driving' intervention of a condominium type, in the presence of expenses borne entirely by the condominium owner, even to an extent exceeding their thousandth share of ownership.

REPLACEMENT OF EXTERNAL GLASS WALLS WITH MASONRY WALLS (Response no. 521 of 3.11.2020)

According to the tax authorities, the expenses incurred for the replacement of the vertical wall of the house, consisting of non-removable glass windows, with an insulating wall that would allow the building to earn the two energy classes required by the law do not give the right to deduct the superbonus. The Revenue Agency, in reviewing the legislation, specifies that the expenses relating to interventions 'of thermal insulation of the opaque vertical, horizontal and inclined surfaces that affect the building envelope with an incidence greater than 25% of the gross dispersing surface of the building or of the real estate unit located inside multi-family buildings which is functionally independent and has one or more independent accesses from the outside' can access the relief in question (art. 119, paragraph 1, letter a) of the Legislative Decree 34/2020).

EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED FOR DRIVING AND DRIVEN INTERVENTIONS (Response no. 523 of 4.11.2020)

With the response to question no. 523/2020, the Agency has provided some clarifications regarding the driving and driving interventions and the spending limits of the 110% superbonus. In particular, he highlighted that in the context of the superbonus, in the event that multiple subsidized interventions are carried out on the same property, the maximum expenditure limit admitted to the deduction is constituted by the sum of the amounts foreseen for each of the interventions carried out.

Therefore, according to the Tax Office, it is possible to benefit from the corresponding deduction provided that the expenses relating to the different interventions are separately accounted for and the obligations specifically provided for in relation to each deduction are respected.