There is a relationship of proportionality between the success of 110% and the other building bonuses and the dizzying growth of fraud attempts blocked in the bud by the Revenue Agency. Four billion is the figure announced by the Prime Minister, Mario Draghi, in the press conference at the end of the year. The amount of suspicious transactions that the Tax Authority has brought to light by stopping the credit transfer or the discount on the invoice. The curve of undue uses or, worse still, of the non-existence of credits has soared after the Anti-fraud decree (Legislative Decree 157), transposed into one of the many amendments approved to the maneuver. In fact, in just over a month the increase was 400% compared to the 800 million reported by the director of the Agency, Ernesto Maria Ruffini, in the interview with Sole 24 Ore on 6 November last.
Not just super bonuses
A problem that, as Revenue sources explain, does not only concern the 110% super bonus mentioned by Draghi and which prompted the M5S parliamentarians to defend the measure with an official note. But it is transversal to all the concessions introduced on the real estate front: from the facade bonus (one of the most popular results also on the fraud front) to the tax credit for commercial rentals. The real problem lies in the credit transfer mechanism.
Precisely for this reason it was necessary to tighten the links. The anti-fraud decree put in place by the government precisely in the face of a situation that could escape with credits that are no longer or at least difficult to recover, was followed by the work of the financial administration supported by the intelligence of the Guardia di Finanza. Thus, at least three risk profiles have been identified that trigger an alert in the Agency’s databases to block sales communications and the options for the discount on the invoice and subject them to further investigation.
The conditions for the stop
The stop may be triggered in the presence of lack of or insufficient consistency and regularity of the data indicated with respect to those present in the tax registry or in any case in the possession of the financial administration. Or even possible signs of anomalies can derive from the data “pertaining” (as the Agency’s provision explains) to the credits being transferred and to the subjects involved in the operations, always drawing on the comparison with the information available in the tax databases. Finally, a further alarm bell is represented by the repetitiveness of transfer operations by the same subjects. An enclosure within which signals are triggered that lead to a deeper communication and also to connect it with the fiscal reliability of the taxpayers involved.
A counter move to try to block those serial operations in which, however, there is no right to credit to be sold. Operations that for many cases are already the subject of analysis also by various Italian prosecutors to find any criminally relevant violations.