Squeezed on Imu, spouses can choose the house to be exempted

Listen to the audio version of the article

Spouses with residences in different municipalities can choose the property on which to apply the Imu exemption provided for the main residence. Thus, with an amendment to Legislative Decree 146/2021, the age-old question that arose on the regime applicable in the case of a family unit that has established residence in two buildings located in different municipalities is resolved.

The law today governs the case of houses located in the same municipality, allowing the exemption to only one of them. With the amendment to Legislative Decree 146/2021, the treatment for IMU purposes is standardized, regardless of whether the properties are located in the same municipality or in different municipalities.

Unresolved operational problems

However, the amendment does not resolve all the outstanding issues and also creates some operational problems. Among other things, it is not clear how taxpayers who have to pay the IMU 2021 balance by December 16 should behave, i.e. which criteria they must follow. Let’s say right away that this is not an authentic interpretation rule, so the modification will be effective from the date of conversion into law onwards. This means that the taxpayer could benefit from the new criterion for a maximum of one month, if the conversion into law were to take place by 15 December 2021, otherwise it will be discussed again from 2022.

For the past, however, we could hope for the intervention of the Constitutional Court, called into question by the Regional Tax Commission for Liguria (with order of 23 September 2020) and more recently by the Provincial Tax Commission of Naples with order 2985 of 22 November 2021.

The tax judges highlighted the initial interpretation of the Financial Administration (circular 3 / DF of 2012) and the opposing jurisprudential orientation of the Cassation, currently consolidated, which excludes the exemption for the sole fact that a member of the family resides in another Municipality (Cassation 4166/2020; 20130/2020 and 17408/2021). In this context, it would therefore be impossible to reach an adaptive interpretation of the provision, precluded by the unambiguous wording of the provision, by the specialty of the facilitating provision and by the presence of a “living right” expressed by the Supreme Court, moreover recognized by the legislator in the context of question 5-06286 of 23 May 2021 (in the circumstance the Department of Finance took note of the orientation expressed by the Supreme Court).


Squeezed Imu spouses choose house exempted

NEXT Betty White, the ‘Golden girl’ actress of American TV, was about to turn 100