reporting on some friends who work in the field, yesterday I had a look at the Bersani Decree (Decree 223/2006) on the news for the taxation of property. Actually I did not believe, after the blunder on the impossibility of Visco unconstitutional retroactive to offset property tax and VAT input tax debt, there was more to see than scandalous in this section of the Decree (Title III).
Instead I read that (to paraphrase the rule as read on the magazine of the College of Surveyors Pythagoras of September 2006) la nuova disposizione all’articolo 35 commi 2-3-4 e 23bis, consente la rettifica diretta d’ufficio –relativamente alle operazioni aventi ad oggetto la cessione di beni immobili e relative pertinenze –della dichiarazione annuale IVA quando il corrispettivo della cessione medesima sia dichiarato in misura inferiore al valore normale del bene. Tale valore normale del bene all’articolo 14 del DPR n. 633 del 1972 cui si rimanda, è definito come:”…il prezzo o il corrispettivo mediamente praticato per beni e servizi della stessa specie o similari in condizioni di libera concorrenza e al medesimo stadio di commercializzazione, nel tempo e nel luogo in cui è stata fatta l’operazione o nel tempo e nel luogo più prossimi”.
Apriti cielo! Ho dovuto stropicciarmi gli occhi e rileggere ancora un paio di volte per capire ciò che si stava dicendo nella norma: davvero d’ufficio è possibile presumere l’infondatezza della dichiarazione del valore del bene da parte del contribuente/imprenditore edile solo perché tale valore si discosta da quello normale (peraltro non meglio specificate le modalità di calcolo della normalità!) tanto da rettificare, sempre d’ufficio, tale valore e quindi l’entità dell’IVA da pagare? Ho letto bene che si presume che la dichiarazione sia illegittima o addirittura tacciabile di evasione perché il valore considerato normale è superiore al valore dichiarato dal contribuente? Ho read correctly that this means reversing the burden of proof on the taxpayer at a time when maybe you're just putting the competitive advantage gained through greater efficiency in managing costs? With all that comes to a bureaucratically contribuente-lavoratore/imprenditore get challenge that presumption by the tax authorities (time and money )?!?!?
Yes, after a few readings, I realize that I understand perfectly: A building contractor is limited in its ability to leverage the best ability to manage costs and thus lower prices by competition, and rightly, in theory, having a his right, to those who have a less efficient management, only as it is competitively priced compared to the value considered normal (say, presumably calculated as the average sales and operations done in a certain period, in areas comparable (?), to properties of the same type) will end up paying VAT increased in As calculated and ground motion value considered normal. And the employer could, if you do not agree with this adjustment, and always having the desire and time to fight against windmills, can not help but challenge the presumption by proving that the price he charged for that ' property is not sustainable and is said to process only part of the VAT.
Here in this rule hidden in a long decree, however, only on a specific economic sector, is contained all the result of the economic culture of the Left: the possible harm free competition between economic entities which, in a market where the scheme is not oligopolistic immediate consequence is a clear economic advantage for the consumer, tend to impose the contract price at which all economic actors will keep abreast with the consequence to upset the economy and bring economic disadvantages to those who left this should help: people, families at that point should buy a house at a price that in cases of greater efficiency than the average could be much lower, even, to promote the culture of equality (not that of equal opportunity) at all costs, in sharp contrast to the culture of meritocracy: those who will not go on the market is better able to have higher margins and lower prices increasing the quantity sold, and working together with a social benefit because the purchaser would be able to check just a lower price, but who will be more organic in power and will receive more support from the state, making latter 'stronger than ever and more present.
This left the current government (I hope only for some left, but I think that those who would agree with this economic vision does not have much say in whether the rules allow you to write like that) do not care, I could only see as the likely convergence of property prices at a single price equal to the normal due to the application of motion correction, can result in increased control of the economy and hopefully (by them) a greater flattening downward momentum of the individual and thus the dynamism of entrepreneurship, since there is no incentive to do better than others.
Not to mention the fact, already widely discussed in other contexts, it is assumed that once again the intention of the taxpayer to defraud the IRS in declare a lower price for the sale of the property in the calculation of VAT.
And this is the economic culture of the left to the government.
Instead I read that (to paraphrase the rule as read on the magazine of the College of Surveyors Pythagoras of September 2006) la nuova disposizione all’articolo 35 commi 2-3-4 e 23bis, consente la rettifica diretta d’ufficio –relativamente alle operazioni aventi ad oggetto la cessione di beni immobili e relative pertinenze –della dichiarazione annuale IVA quando il corrispettivo della cessione medesima sia dichiarato in misura inferiore al valore normale del bene. Tale valore normale del bene all’articolo 14 del DPR n. 633 del 1972 cui si rimanda, è definito come:”…il prezzo o il corrispettivo mediamente praticato per beni e servizi della stessa specie o similari in condizioni di libera concorrenza e al medesimo stadio di commercializzazione, nel tempo e nel luogo in cui è stata fatta l’operazione o nel tempo e nel luogo più prossimi”.
Apriti cielo! Ho dovuto stropicciarmi gli occhi e rileggere ancora un paio di volte per capire ciò che si stava dicendo nella norma: davvero d’ufficio è possibile presumere l’infondatezza della dichiarazione del valore del bene da parte del contribuente/imprenditore edile solo perché tale valore si discosta da quello normale (peraltro non meglio specificate le modalità di calcolo della normalità!) tanto da rettificare, sempre d’ufficio, tale valore e quindi l’entità dell’IVA da pagare? Ho letto bene che si presume che la dichiarazione sia illegittima o addirittura tacciabile di evasione perché il valore considerato normale è superiore al valore dichiarato dal contribuente? Ho read correctly that this means reversing the burden of proof on the taxpayer at a time when maybe you're just putting the competitive advantage gained through greater efficiency in managing costs? With all that comes to a bureaucratically contribuente-lavoratore/imprenditore get challenge that presumption by the tax authorities (time and money )?!?!?
Yes, after a few readings, I realize that I understand perfectly: A building contractor is limited in its ability to leverage the best ability to manage costs and thus lower prices by competition, and rightly, in theory, having a his right, to those who have a less efficient management, only as it is competitively priced compared to the value considered normal (say, presumably calculated as the average sales and operations done in a certain period, in areas comparable (?), to properties of the same type) will end up paying VAT increased in As calculated and ground motion value considered normal. And the employer could, if you do not agree with this adjustment, and always having the desire and time to fight against windmills, can not help but challenge the presumption by proving that the price he charged for that ' property is not sustainable and is said to process only part of the VAT.
Here in this rule hidden in a long decree, however, only on a specific economic sector, is contained all the result of the economic culture of the Left: the possible harm free competition between economic entities which, in a market where the scheme is not oligopolistic immediate consequence is a clear economic advantage for the consumer, tend to impose the contract price at which all economic actors will keep abreast with the consequence to upset the economy and bring economic disadvantages to those who left this should help: people, families at that point should buy a house at a price that in cases of greater efficiency than the average could be much lower, even, to promote the culture of equality (not that of equal opportunity) at all costs, in sharp contrast to the culture of meritocracy: those who will not go on the market is better able to have higher margins and lower prices increasing the quantity sold, and working together with a social benefit because the purchaser would be able to check just a lower price, but who will be more organic in power and will receive more support from the state, making latter 'stronger than ever and more present.
This left the current government (I hope only for some left, but I think that those who would agree with this economic vision does not have much say in whether the rules allow you to write like that) do not care, I could only see as the likely convergence of property prices at a single price equal to the normal due to the application of motion correction, can result in increased control of the economy and hopefully (by them) a greater flattening downward momentum of the individual and thus the dynamism of entrepreneurship, since there is no incentive to do better than others.
Not to mention the fact, already widely discussed in other contexts, it is assumed that once again the intention of the taxpayer to defraud the IRS in declare a lower price for the sale of the property in the calculation of VAT.
And this is the economic culture of the left to the government.
0 comments:
Post a Comment