"NEWS July 8, 2016-1° HOUSE:" super "term only to the House previously facilitated"

Posted by on Jul 8, 2016

The stability law 2016 intervened to change the discipline of subsidy "first House" and more time to the purchaser of the property for the sale of the former estate facilitated: from 2016, in fact, is no longer ostativo the possession of another house gained from tax benefits, as long as it is sold within one year. On point consists of circular 27/and though the clarification that the greater June 13, 2016 deadline does not affect your ability to yield more housing estate located in the municipality for which you did not apply the benefit.


Facilitating "first House"

The note II-bis of article 1 of the tariff, part I, annexed the consolidated registration tax (DPR 131/1986) regulates the requirements that must be met in order to qualify for the application of stamp duty reduced to 2 percent instead of 9% (requirements which include the possibility of applying VAT at 4% under referral required by table 21 to part II entry attached to DPR 633/1972) :

  • the property that is purchased, on which they ask the benefits "first House", should not be a luxury, so it must be stacked in different category from A/1, A/8 and A/9;
  • It is necessary that the House purchased is located in the municipality in which the purchaser has or establishes, within 18 months of purchase, his residence;
  • in the Act of purchase the buyer must declare not to be exclusive owner, or in communion with their spouse, property rights, usufruct, use and habitation of other residential house in the municipality where the property is situated to be purchased;
  • Finally it is necessary that the taxpayer does not hold anywhere in the national territory, even tranche or in statutory community, of other habitation by him or by his spouse purchased property, usufruct, use or habitation for facilitating "first House".

The novelty of law 208/2015 and the clarification of the circular 27/s/2016

On this last requirement the law of stability for the 2016 intervened with paragraph 55, introducing in the new paragraph 4 Note callback II-bis-bis: "the rate of 2 per cent also applies to acts of purchase for which the buyer does not meet the requirement referred to in point c) of paragraph 1 and for which the requirements referred to in points a and b) of the same paragraph) occur regardless of your purchased property with benefits listed in the letter c), provided that the latter property is disposed of within one year of the date of the Act. In the absence of that alienation, the Act referred to in the preceding period applies as referred to in paragraph 4 ".

This provision allows a taxpayer, when purchasing a property, to benefit from reduced registration fee even if you still holder (anywhere within the national territory) of ownership or other real rights on other habitation already purchased for facilitating "first House". Not just opening that allows you to sell previously owned home with more tranquility.

As stated in the circular 27/s/2016, however, this increased flexibility introduced with reference to the possibility of ceding the former estate facilitated, does not affect the other requirements, particularly the one prohibiting the taxpayer owning other residential property in the same town. The Agency, in fact, claims like: "In other case in which the property was acquired without enjoying preposseduto of the above benefits, the taxpayer will not be able to purchase a new property located in the same town as it would not be easier fulfilled the condition laid down in point b) of the note II-bis) which requires the buyer to declare that it did not own, wholly or in communion with your spouse , another house in the municipality where the property is situated to buy. "

This is a rather paradoxical conclusion in the functioning logic of subsidy: it is allowed to assign a subsidized preposseduto property, but within a year when buying a House on which I intend to invoke the facility does not have to possess other habitation not facilitated in the municipality, with no possibility of a subsequent alienation. Despite this finding about the lack of reasonableness with which it is configured the facility, is to be commended that the position taken by the revenue is beyond reproach on the basis of the regulation.

Moreover, it should be noted that the same conclusion was reached by the Council of notaries with studio 5-2016/T, stating as such foreclosure there is even when the buyer owns other property acquired free of charge, in the latter case, whether the purchase was also making use of the facilities provided for the different advantages of mortgage, assuming it is (article 69 Law 342/2000).

Fabio Garrini