Super bonus 110% and spending limits: AdE clarifies the mystery

We had already realized that something was wrong at the time, when theRevenue Agency withdrew answer no. 568/2021 on the spending limits envisaged on individual real estate units and appurtenances, for interventions falling within
Superbonus 110%.

Today we have official confirmation, with answer no. 765/2021 (as if it were necessary) that the tax authorities published as a correction to that of last August 30th.

Superbonus, calculation of appurtenance spending limits: tax adjustment

To explain what happened, it is necessary to take a step back. The request for ruling was presented by the owner of a building co-owned with another natural person, of a building consisting of:

  • a stacked housing unit A / 3;
  • two belongings, of which one is stacked C / 6, intended for use “garage”, and one stacked C / 2, intended for use “warehouse”.

On these buildings you want to carry out seismic improvement interventions and of energy efficiency (thermal insulation of the external walls, replacement of the thermal power plant, replacement of fixtures and installation of the photovoltaic system and the related storage system), taking advantage of the facilities provided for by article 119 of Legislative Decree no. 34/2020 (cd. “Relaunch Decree”).

Furthermore, at the end of the works the
intended use of a portion of the “warehouse”, with the creation of an additional residential real estate unit of category A / 3.

Hence the doubt: what is the number of real estate units to be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculation of spending limits for interventions eligible for the subsidized scheme? The initial ones or the final ones? E Should the appliances be considered in their own right or not?

Relevance: difference between condominiums and single-family buildings

With the answer n. 568/2021 the instant had won a lottery: according to the Revenue Agency, the appurtenances were calculated as real estate units to himself standing. This opinion had raised more than a doubt, because it seemed not to take into account a fundamental distinction on the calculation of the expenditure ceilings relating to the appurtenances:

  • if they are stacked independently in a
    condominium they contribute to determining the maximum deductible expense, as long as they are incorporated in the same building where the apartments involved in the works are located;
  • those in single-family buildings, internal or detached that are, even if individually stacked, fall within the expenditure ceiling of the building.

Calculation of spending limits on appurtenances: the new answer from ADE

So how was it possible that the appliances had been calculated as separate units, given that they were located in the same single-family building? So here is the correction of
AdE, provided with answer no. 765/2021: the Agency refers to circular no. 24 / E of 2020 and remember that the Superbonus deduction 110% also in relation to the interventions carried out on single-family residential buildings and related appurtenances (both driving and towing) and whose spending limits for each intervention refer to the single property and its appurtenances jointly considered, even if stacked separately.

Furthermore, in line with the practice regarding deductions for energy redevelopment and building heritage recovery interventions, including anti-seismic ones currently governed by Articles 14 and 16 of Legislative Decree no. 63/2013, for the purpose of identifying the spending limits in the event that the interventions involve the unification of several real estate units or the subdivision of a single unit, the real estate units registered in the Cadastre must be considered at the beginning of construction works and not those resulting at the end of the work.

Same criterion, as clarified with circular no. 30 / E of 2020, must also be applied for the purposes of the Superbonus: this means that in the case in question, concerning a single-family residential building consisting of a stacked residential unit and two appliances, the available spending limits correspond to:

  • 96.000 euro for the anti-seismic interventions considering the single residential unit together with the two appurtenant real estate units;
  • 50.000 euro for thethermal insulation of the external walls;
  • 30.000 euro for the replacement of the
    thermal power plant;
  • 54.545 euro for the replacement of
  • 48.000 euro for the installation ofphotovoltaic system, and in any case within the spending limit of euro 2.400 for each kW of nominal power, to be divided among the entitled parties in five annual installments of the same amount and in four annual installments of the same amount for the part of the expenditure incurred in the year 2022. In the case of interventions referred to in Article 3, paragraph 1, letters d), e) and f), of Presidential Decree no. 380/2001, the spending limit is reduced to € 1,600 for each kW of nominal power;
  • 48.000 euro for the installation of the relative
    storage system.

Therefore the two appurtenances, being in a single-family building, fall within the expenditure ceiling of the residential unit and it is worthless that one of the two is converted into a residential unit: for the calculation of the limits the building in its initial state must be considered and not the one resulting at the end of the work.

NEXT Super Cashback, waiting for refunds: that’s when the missing payments will arrive