Guide to the right of interpellation - Part 2
The competent authority shall notify its interpretation to the taxpayer within one hundred twenty days. It, confirming whether or not the suggested solution from the instant, does not establish an absolute truth but only the opinion of the Financial Administration.
In our country, always exists the freedom of interpretation: the answers to such difficulties are "practice papers", that is likely to persuade people to follow a certain behavior, but without, however, bind them. Moreover, even the institution is required to comply, so that it is common in front of two distinct such difficulties, the same body you change your mind and gives a different interpretation on a case identical to the one already considered in its time.
The taxpayer can, therefore, feel free to comply or not the interpretation offered by the institution. But there is a noticeable difference compared to the previously described case of advice in respect to a question of a general nature and is linked to the burden of proof.
If, in fact, the taxpayer elects not to comply with the opinion and subsequently received a dispute should arise, the law establishes a presumption in favor of the institution. So it's up to the taxpayer to prove his reasons and justify the fact that he conformed to the response elicited.
But also the body can do the same. That can provide a given interpretation to the taxpayer and then deny it, denying that the behavior that he (albeit in good faith) has put in place conforming to the opinion, in which case, however, there are never any penalties payable by the taxpayer. And of course this time will touch institution has to prove why the conduct of the taxpayer would be contrary to the existing rules.
Assuming, then, does not reply within one hundred twenty days, the principle of tacit consent: the taxpayer is free to interpret the law as it deems proper and behave accordingly. In the event of subsequent litigation, the burden of proof, however, will touch the agency and the citizen has never sanctioned.
The process described in previous articles, very linear, constitute the ordinary procedure of questioning. However, it may be the case where such linearity is jeopardized when the agency asked emits at different times two opinions to the contrary.
Entity is in fact a legally enforceable right to rectify his first opinion by a second later. In all cases, the second opinion can not be issued over a maximum period of one hundred and twenty days from when it was notified of the request for ruling the taxpayer
At this point there are two possible situations. If the citizen has not yet put in place any behavior in response to the first opinion, then the second replaces all the previous effects, it is as if it never existed.
If he has already done, then the second opinion has come "out of time" and therefore it will be just to the latter should be regarded as never issued.
The ruling has had since 2000 a key role drastically reduce the tax disputes, not least because many of the opinions issued are made public - maintaining anonymity sull'interpellante - by the Inland Revenue (under the name of "resolutions" ).
Of course, every resolution has its own story and has no legal ramifications to third parties. It still produces a huge value of persuasion: in fact, knowing how to start the entity in question plays a certain standard, it is clear that anyone in a similar situation as a result will tend to conform to his own time.
The excellent results achieved by the 2000 law has prompted the legislature to establish similar measures after the INPS to interpret the rules at work and at the same Tax in very specific and delicate materials such as shell companies and international transactions.
25/11/2008
----------------------------------------
Translated via software
----------------------------------------
Source:
Italian version of ReteIngegneri.it