The return of the instrument for assessing citizens’ income is getting closer and closer. Therefore, the income meter, after the arrival of the stop in 2018, it is preparing to be operational again for the evaluations from the fiscal period 2016 with the aim of persecuting tax evaders. The measure would trigger any controls in the presence of a difference of more than 20% between declared and reconstructed income. In this case, the taxpayer will ask the taxpayer to justify certain expenses even if they do not have enough income to support them. THE control S They will be more precise and detailed thanks also to the intersection of statistical data with all the information related to the expenses incurred by the families.
The mortgage in the crosshairs
Under the spring Telephone consumption, medical expenses, college, university, clothing, personal care, vacations and public transportation will end. There are also them for the management of a car (for example in terms of changing fuel and oil), for electricity, gas and heating. Financial management offices will examine various types of expenses that also involve furniture, electrical appliances, household services, health, communications, leisure, culture and games. Investment data (real estate and securities), savings and transfer costs will also be evaluated.
But that is not all. According to reports from MutuiSuperMarket, one more item would be added which would therefore end up in the viewer: the mutual, which could be part of the various expenses monitored by the tax authorities for the purposes of the income meter. It has already happened in the past that the mortgage was used as a verification tool “to demonstrate that the increase in the taxpayer’s equity was not compatible with the declared income“.
“The loan dilutes the ability to pay”
The Court of Cassation, which with ruling 26668/20 gave reason to the Tax Agency after the appeal of a taxpayer. The reasons were rejected because, even subtracting the part paid by the parents from the loan amount, the residual capital was in any case inconsistent with respect to the declared income. Specifically, the Supreme Court had conducted a clarification very clear: if the office were to synthetically determine the total net income in relation to the expense for capital increases and the taxpayer deducted and demonstrated that this expense is justified by contracting a multi-year mortgage “,the loan itself does not exclude, but dilutes the ability to pay“. Later “Borrowed principal must be deducted from verified expenses (and attributed to income), but accumulated and paid loan accruals must be added to it for each annuity“.