: In a single judgment, the Supreme Court ruled on three issues of particular importance, also in light of the new rules approved in the meantime. Firstly, it admits substitute self-protection, distinguishing it from supplementary assessment, if it allows a more in-depth assessment of the elements already in possession (and assessed) but without increasing the tax requested. Secondly, it states that in the rules applicable pro tempore no constrained form of adversarial procedure was prescribed, but the performance of activities functional to its implementation was sufficient and necessary. Thirdly, it argues that the contribution of a trust asset, having only segregating effect, does not meet the requirement of impoxidation for the settlor, necessary to enjoy the first home benefit again in VAT and registration tax
La Cassazione in una sola sentenza si pronuncia su tre temi di particolare rilevanza, anche alla luce delle nuove norme nel frattempo approvate. In primo luogo, ammette l’autotutela sostitutiva, distinguendola dall’accertamento integrativo, se consente una più approfondita valutazione degli elementi già in possesso (e valutati) ma senza incrementare il tributo richiesto. In secondo luogo, afferma che nella disciplina applicabile pro tempore non era prescritta alcuna forma vincolata di contraddittorio, ma era sufficiente e necessario l’espletamento di attività funzionali alla sua realizzazione. In terzo luogo, sostiene che il conferimento di un bene in trust , avendo soltanto efficacia segregante, non integra in capo al disponente il requisito della impossidenza, necessario per godere nuovamente dell’agevolazione prima casa nell’Iva e nell’imposta di registro.
Autotutela sostitutiva, contraddittorio, agevolazione prima casa… e sullo sfondo il Trust
Guido Salanitro
2025-01-01
Abstract
: In a single judgment, the Supreme Court ruled on three issues of particular importance, also in light of the new rules approved in the meantime. Firstly, it admits substitute self-protection, distinguishing it from supplementary assessment, if it allows a more in-depth assessment of the elements already in possession (and assessed) but without increasing the tax requested. Secondly, it states that in the rules applicable pro tempore no constrained form of adversarial procedure was prescribed, but the performance of activities functional to its implementation was sufficient and necessary. Thirdly, it argues that the contribution of a trust asset, having only segregating effect, does not meet the requirement of impoxidation for the settlor, necessary to enjoy the first home benefit again in VAT and registration taxI documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.