“The legislator has not provided the necessary standards”To make the collection. And “if the collection does not work, theRevenue Agency and the Guardia di Finanza will not be able to never defeat tax evasion“. On 11 June, the number one of the Revenue, Ernesto Maria Ruffini, summed up the condition of impotence tax authorities in getting their dues paid. And it is precisely by evoking the need for one reform that the premier Mario Draghi in March he had explained the choice of inserting a amnesty of the old ones folders up to 5 thousand euros dated 2000-2010. “The state did not work, we need to change something,” he said. So the favor to unfaithful taxpayers – with a estimated cost of 666 million for the public purse – was accompanied by the promise that within 60 days from the entry into force of Sostegni decree (on March 23) on treasure would have sent to the Chambers one report con i criteria “To proceed to revision of the mechanism control and of discharge of unclaimed credits “. But more than 90 days have passed and that document still isn’t there. On the other hand, the Court of Auditors raised a red card with respect to the temptation that transpired from the decree: to limit oneself to foreseeing, after a certain number of years, the automatic cancellation of the unclaimed roles. Yet another free everyone.
The “absolute inadequacy” of the system which only recovers 13% of the amount due – The delay accumulated from via XX Settembre does not reconcile with the objective, inserted in the National recovery and resilience plan, to attack thetax evasion hiring others 2 thousand specialists to remedy the block in turnover and using theartificial intelligence and the machine learning for data analysis. Why seek out those who have pangs with the tax authorities – as they aim to do with the new income meter subjected to public consultation in recent days – it is of little use if the collection agency, the Revenue arm, fails to collect the ascertained credits. The point, therefore, is to change the rules that today prevent the institution from doing its job, with the result that in the last twenty years only the 13% due and the residual load at 31 December 2020 it reached i 227 million of individual credits for a monstre value of 999.1 billion. Of which 152 pertaining to subjects losers, 133 a deceased or discontinued businesses, 115 a nullatenenti and 445 referring to taxpayers against whom some action has been attempted but without success. An “absolute inadequacy“, According to the Court of Auditors, which manifests itself above all for high-value roles, those potentially greediest for the public purse.
The Treasury hypothesis: automatic cancellation after five years – The ministry led by Daniele Franco, to tell the truth, he had identified a way out. In the first drafts of the Sostegni decree it was foreseen that, once the excerpt of the old files was completed, the automatic cancellation of any role that has been inactive for more than five years. Without even an evaluation of their residual collectability. “A permanent amnesty,” he commented Vincenzo Visco, a former finance minister who created tax agencies in the late 1990s. From there the maldipancia di Leu and a fringe of the 5 Star Movement and the decision to revise the terms of the amnesty, reducing the time horizon of the write-off and providing for a ceiling of 30 thousand euros of income tax, and in addition to refer any decision on the reform to the report of the Ministry of Economy. Which should have arrived by the end of May.
The red card of the Court of Auditors – What happened in the meantime? From Court of Auditors, who immediately censured the new amnesty, pointing out how it produces “disorientation and bitterness for those who promptly fulfill and further thrust a avoid spontaneous payment for many others ”, came a up there. In the 2021 Report on the coordination of public finance dated May 28, the accounting judiciary reiterated that “whatever the actual reason for the cancellation” of those files, “its adoption should necessarily involve a profound revision of organizational and procedural model so far adopted for the compulsory collection of public credits ”. On the contrary, the reference to “criteria for proceeding with the revision of the control and discharge mechanism for uncollected credits” according to the Court “lets shine through the goal of achieving a automatic discharge system of the shares not collected after the expiration of a certain period from their taking charge, as well as a methodology for managing the loads entrusted based on selective criteria “. An eventuality “from ward off“, According to the supervisory body, because”altererebbe radically the tax management system in which the compulsory collection of the sums still due is a complement essential“. Why “it does not appear compatible with the correct functioning of the system that the results of the automatic controls and of the substantial controls of the fiscal positions do not lead then concrete and effective actions for their collection, whatever the amount of the same “.
The suggestions for the reform: an autonomous agency and fewer limits on foreclosures and expropriations – No to automatic cancellation after a certain number of years, therefore. What is needed, for the Court, is “a broad and organic revision of the entire system” to “enhance the efficiency of the administrative structure and adequately protect the interest of the state“. Various suggestions follow both on the organizational and on the procedural front: establishment of an autonomous collection agency in which the INPS can also participate, overcoming personnel shortages, updating of the “obsolete” computer system, exceeding thepremium in favor of an ad hoc endowment fund, more rational regulation of obligations, revision of the “interminable series of notifications which extend collection times ”such as the obligation to give notice before 120 days from the beginning of the attachment for credits under 1000 euros. And other regulatory interventions – certainly politically delicatissimi – that strengthen the position of the public creditor, whose range of action is now restricted, for example, by the limits to foreclosure salaries, pensions and main residence and the deductible of 120 thousand euros for the expropriation of other properties.
The intersection of data? – Another sore point concerns the use, to increase the effectiveness of collection, of the data contained in theregistry of financial relations. The Budget law for 2020 made it possible to use the information on banking and financial relationships for the purpose of analyzing the risk of evasion. But, more than a year after that maneuver, the request for an opinion submitted by the Ministry of Economy to the Privacy Guarantor is still in the process of investigation. Those data could also be used to “increase the effectiveness of the collection activity and the timeliness of the recovery action”, underlines the accounting judiciary. The icing on the cake, the management of installments: even on this front the picture is disheartening. Those who do not pay the installments, the Court notes, should be denied access to subsequent measures of that type that aim to help those who want to comply. But today it is always possible to get back on track, “expanding collection times”. Not only that: it makes sense that the debtor can – as happens today – access the installments after the deadline, only after the State has initiated aexecutive action? And does it make sense to grant an installment plan “without any investigation into the substantial solvency of the applicants”? The answers lie with the government.