A Town Called on a taxpayer to pay for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009 following a notice of payment ", the sum of € xxxxx, as well as sanctions and interests. The City has not been deprived of the opportunity to claim the credit, since this right has been exercised as provided for in Article 72 of Decree No. 507/93? It brings an action in Tax Commission?
seems illegitimate. Since, however, tax on waste, the route of argumentation to arrive at this conclusion is already winding, and is made even more convoluted by the use of the order instead of the role.
attempts to illustrate.
Article 72 of Decree 15 November 1993, No 507 provides that the roles of collecting the levy on waste are subject to a limitation period, to expire at the end of the year following the year in which the declaration was made or has been notified of the finding. However, since the declaration of the beginning employment also applies to subsequent years (So-called "ultra-active effect" of the complaint: Article 70, Decree 507), the fee for the years for which there is no obligation to repeat the complaint shall be entered on the payroll by the end of the year following that for which is due. Under this provision, I am asked whether the municipality is deprived of the power to collect taxes for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by not entered in the register by the end of 2006.2007, 2008 and 2009. We address this issue first, and leave for a moment the added complication due to the use of the order instead of the role. The repeal of the decline related to the date of registration in the register.
A) The central government taxes. According to a peaceful
jurisprudence (for all: the Constitutional Court, Judgement 15 July 2005, n. 280), training and deployment of the roles collection agency is now merely an internal act of public administration, which the taxpayer is unable to check to verify compliance with the terms of the contract. This is so unlike the situation before the reform of tax collection implemented with Legislative Decree 26 February 1999, No 46, where the approval of the roles and their delivery to the debt is part of a chain procedural in which the final date to commit an act also marked the starting point to perform the act next. Since the Final Act and "outside" of the collection procedure and the notification of the folder, this will rely on the legislature to ensure that the taxpayer will not remain indefinitely exposed to tax enforcement. This was established by the Constitutional Court, with the same decision 280, 2005. But even adding that the starting point - from which to start the next time-limit for notifying the folder - can not identify the date, not controllable by the taxpayer, the debt collector to send roles. To adapt to the delivery of the Consulta, a first measure (Article 1, paragraphs 5 bis and 5 ter, the DL June 17, 2005, n. 106) the legislature has completely sovvertito la disciplina delle decadenze per la riscossione delle imposte sui redditi (nonché delle relative addizionali, dell’Irap e dell’Iva), ancorandole non più alla data di iscrizione a ruolo, ma alla successiva notificazione della cartella al contribuente. In tal senso: a) è stato soppresso l’articolo 17 del Dpr 29 settembre 1973, n. 602, che scandiva i tempi di decadenza per l’iscrizione a ruolo; b) sono stati previsti nel successivo articolo 25 i termini tassativi entro i quali occorre notificare la cartella, facendoli decorrere non più dalla formazione del ruolo, ma dall’anno di presentazione della dichiarazione, o da quello in cui l’accertamento è divenuto definitivo.
B) The local taxes.
The decree law of 2005 left unregulated all local taxes to be collected was subject to compulsory forfeiture. Besides the already mentioned Article 72 of Decree 507 of 1993, you can mention - for example, in the field of local property taxes - Article 12 of Decree 30 December 1992, n. 504, which, as in force until 2006, required to enter the amounts found by the City of roles in "formats and as implemented no later than December 31 of the second year following that in which the notice of assessment or notice of investigation have been notified. " The work initiated by the legislature by Decree Law 106 is accomplished with the 2007 Budget. Article 1 of the Law of 27 December 2006, no 296 held as follows: for the enforcement of local taxes on the Enforcement (folder or order) shall be notified to the taxpayer, subject to revocation by 31 December of the third year following the year in which the assessment is become final (subsection 163), the rule applies to tax reports "pending" until 1 January 2007, the date of entry into force of the law (paragraph 171).
The "anomalies" of Tarsu.
All local taxes, before being registered as, to be ascertained or liquidated by the City with a notice-sometimes referred to as the "Investigation", sometimes "clearance". This rule, however, subtract the tax on waste that, compared to other duties, has some characteristics of 'abnormal': there is no annual reporting, even in rudimentary form dell'autotassazione, however, that the local authority can not introduce settlement in case of direct collection (Ministry of Economy and Finance, July 30, 2002 resolution, No 8/DPF), when the tax is paid on a complaint "ultra active" (presented once, with effect also for the years), the municipality is not obliged to notify the taxpayer no warnings, no settlement or even the first to sign up for the role (until very recently: Court of Cassation, Judgement 1 October 2007, No 20,646). As for collecting the tax does not necessarily exist or an annual statement, not a unilateral act by (for detection or clearance) by counting the service in three years (paragraph 163 of the "Budget" 2007), there are, and how to calculate the terms of decay? Still apply those established by Article 72 of Decree 507 of 1993 (which was not repealed by express rule), as requested by the taxpayer? The answer does not derive from the law, but by case law. According to the Court of Final Appeal (Case May 9, 2007, No. 10,590) 'title derived from the statement is tantamount to the establishment of the taxpayer's final. " Se la massima, enunciata per l’Iva, è estensibile ad altri tributi, compresa la tassa sui rifiuti, ciò c’induce a concludere che:
a) l’articolo 72 del Dlgs 507 è stato tacitamente abrogato, con effetto 1 gennaio 2007, nella parte in cui prevede il termine di un anno per l’iscrizione a ruolo della tassa dovuta in base all’accertamento;
b) il termine introdotto dal comma 163 è quello che disciplina la riscossione della tassa in ogni caso, e quindi anche di quella dovuta in base a dichiarazioni, anche ultra attive; e coincide, in questi casi, con la fine del terzo anno successivo a quello nel quale fu presentata la denuncia, o a quello per il quale la tassa è dovuta (denuncia ultra active);
c) the three-year term does not operate retroactively in situations where, according to the previously existing provisions, the local authority had already fallen from power to levy. In light of this contention, the taxpayer paid the tax - ie the order in which the City claimed the taxes for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 - is untimely, having formed the local authority role, respectively, by the end of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, in violation of the limitation period imposed by Article 72 of Decree No 507. On this assumption, and in light of other undisputed legal principles, the action lo faremmo. Infatti: i termini di decadenza per l’iscrizione a ruolo andavano osservati anche sotto l’imperio di norme per le quali la formazione e la trasmissione dei ruoli all’agente della riscossione sono meri atti “interni” della Pubblica Amministrazione; incombe sull’ente impositore l’onere di provare in giudizio d’aver compiuto tempestivamente atti idonei ad impedire la decadenza.
IL PUNTO: IL TITOLO INIDONEO È PRIVO DI EFFETTI INTERRUTTIVI. Di fronte a una simile contestazione, il Comune si difenderà eccependo che ha adottato la riscossione diretta; che il titolo esecutivo non è il ruolo ma l’ingiunzione; che, pertanto, non può invocarsi la decadenza comminata dalla legge per la formazione del ruolo. È sostenibile una simile argomentazione? Ricordiamo che l’istituto della decadenza è volto a stabilizzare le situazioni giuridiche, anche tributarie. Il contribuente ha interesse a sapere se la sua posizione è definitiva, o se il fisco può ancora modificarla. Essendo la decadenza funzionale al superiore interesse pubblico della certezza dei diritti, non la si può eludere solo perché il Comune ha approvato il regolamento sulle entrate. È, pertanto, ininfluente che il titolo esecutivo sia l’ingiunzione, non potendo ciò tradursi nella compressione dei diritti del contribuente.Peraltro, l’articolo 2966 del Codice civile è molto rigoroso quando afferma che “la decadenza non if it is prevented from performance of the act provided by law. " The code does not allow equal merit, nor does it grant the power to make regulations on the law (Article 52, paragraph 6, of Decree 15 December 1997, n. 446). Just wanted to combine the code with the regulatory authority, the only way to avert the decline was, if anything, than to notify the order by the end of the year following the year for which taxes were due. But even so it happened. From this point of view, it is also insignificant that the municipality has issued "payment notices" remained unsolved. Such warnings are not provided by law, and, like all the administrative matter ai modelli legali, sono inidonei ad interrompere la prescrizione (Cassazione, 17 marzo 2005, n. 5798). A maggior ragione non hanno impedito la decadenza che, a differenza della prescrizione, non è nemmeno soggetta ad interruzione (articolo 2964 del Codice civile). Infine, l’imposizione sarebbe parzialmente legittima se si ritenesse applicabile il termine triennale della Finanziaria 2007. Si salverebbe, infatti, solo la tassa per il 2007, 2008 e 2009.
attempts to illustrate.
Article 72 of Decree 15 November 1993, No 507 provides that the roles of collecting the levy on waste are subject to a limitation period, to expire at the end of the year following the year in which the declaration was made or has been notified of the finding. However, since the declaration of the beginning employment also applies to subsequent years (So-called "ultra-active effect" of the complaint: Article 70, Decree 507), the fee for the years for which there is no obligation to repeat the complaint shall be entered on the payroll by the end of the year following that for which is due. Under this provision, I am asked whether the municipality is deprived of the power to collect taxes for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by not entered in the register by the end of 2006.2007, 2008 and 2009. We address this issue first, and leave for a moment the added complication due to the use of the order instead of the role. The repeal of the decline related to the date of registration in the register.
A) The central government taxes. According to a peaceful
jurisprudence (for all: the Constitutional Court, Judgement 15 July 2005, n. 280), training and deployment of the roles collection agency is now merely an internal act of public administration, which the taxpayer is unable to check to verify compliance with the terms of the contract. This is so unlike the situation before the reform of tax collection implemented with Legislative Decree 26 February 1999, No 46, where the approval of the roles and their delivery to the debt is part of a chain procedural in which the final date to commit an act also marked the starting point to perform the act next. Since the Final Act and "outside" of the collection procedure and the notification of the folder, this will rely on the legislature to ensure that the taxpayer will not remain indefinitely exposed to tax enforcement. This was established by the Constitutional Court, with the same decision 280, 2005. But even adding that the starting point - from which to start the next time-limit for notifying the folder - can not identify the date, not controllable by the taxpayer, the debt collector to send roles. To adapt to the delivery of the Consulta, a first measure (Article 1, paragraphs 5 bis and 5 ter, the DL June 17, 2005, n. 106) the legislature has completely sovvertito la disciplina delle decadenze per la riscossione delle imposte sui redditi (nonché delle relative addizionali, dell’Irap e dell’Iva), ancorandole non più alla data di iscrizione a ruolo, ma alla successiva notificazione della cartella al contribuente. In tal senso: a) è stato soppresso l’articolo 17 del Dpr 29 settembre 1973, n. 602, che scandiva i tempi di decadenza per l’iscrizione a ruolo; b) sono stati previsti nel successivo articolo 25 i termini tassativi entro i quali occorre notificare la cartella, facendoli decorrere non più dalla formazione del ruolo, ma dall’anno di presentazione della dichiarazione, o da quello in cui l’accertamento è divenuto definitivo.
B) The local taxes.
The decree law of 2005 left unregulated all local taxes to be collected was subject to compulsory forfeiture. Besides the already mentioned Article 72 of Decree 507 of 1993, you can mention - for example, in the field of local property taxes - Article 12 of Decree 30 December 1992, n. 504, which, as in force until 2006, required to enter the amounts found by the City of roles in "formats and as implemented no later than December 31 of the second year following that in which the notice of assessment or notice of investigation have been notified. " The work initiated by the legislature by Decree Law 106 is accomplished with the 2007 Budget. Article 1 of the Law of 27 December 2006, no 296 held as follows: for the enforcement of local taxes on the Enforcement (folder or order) shall be notified to the taxpayer, subject to revocation by 31 December of the third year following the year in which the assessment is become final (subsection 163), the rule applies to tax reports "pending" until 1 January 2007, the date of entry into force of the law (paragraph 171).
The "anomalies" of Tarsu.
All local taxes, before being registered as, to be ascertained or liquidated by the City with a notice-sometimes referred to as the "Investigation", sometimes "clearance". This rule, however, subtract the tax on waste that, compared to other duties, has some characteristics of 'abnormal': there is no annual reporting, even in rudimentary form dell'autotassazione, however, that the local authority can not introduce settlement in case of direct collection (Ministry of Economy and Finance, July 30, 2002 resolution, No 8/DPF), when the tax is paid on a complaint "ultra active" (presented once, with effect also for the years), the municipality is not obliged to notify the taxpayer no warnings, no settlement or even the first to sign up for the role (until very recently: Court of Cassation, Judgement 1 October 2007, No 20,646). As for collecting the tax does not necessarily exist or an annual statement, not a unilateral act by (for detection or clearance) by counting the service in three years (paragraph 163 of the "Budget" 2007), there are, and how to calculate the terms of decay? Still apply those established by Article 72 of Decree 507 of 1993 (which was not repealed by express rule), as requested by the taxpayer? The answer does not derive from the law, but by case law. According to the Court of Final Appeal (Case May 9, 2007, No. 10,590) 'title derived from the statement is tantamount to the establishment of the taxpayer's final. " Se la massima, enunciata per l’Iva, è estensibile ad altri tributi, compresa la tassa sui rifiuti, ciò c’induce a concludere che:
a) l’articolo 72 del Dlgs 507 è stato tacitamente abrogato, con effetto 1 gennaio 2007, nella parte in cui prevede il termine di un anno per l’iscrizione a ruolo della tassa dovuta in base all’accertamento;
b) il termine introdotto dal comma 163 è quello che disciplina la riscossione della tassa in ogni caso, e quindi anche di quella dovuta in base a dichiarazioni, anche ultra attive; e coincide, in questi casi, con la fine del terzo anno successivo a quello nel quale fu presentata la denuncia, o a quello per il quale la tassa è dovuta (denuncia ultra active);
c) the three-year term does not operate retroactively in situations where, according to the previously existing provisions, the local authority had already fallen from power to levy. In light of this contention, the taxpayer paid the tax - ie the order in which the City claimed the taxes for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 - is untimely, having formed the local authority role, respectively, by the end of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, in violation of the limitation period imposed by Article 72 of Decree No 507. On this assumption, and in light of other undisputed legal principles, the action lo faremmo. Infatti: i termini di decadenza per l’iscrizione a ruolo andavano osservati anche sotto l’imperio di norme per le quali la formazione e la trasmissione dei ruoli all’agente della riscossione sono meri atti “interni” della Pubblica Amministrazione; incombe sull’ente impositore l’onere di provare in giudizio d’aver compiuto tempestivamente atti idonei ad impedire la decadenza.
IL PUNTO: IL TITOLO INIDONEO È PRIVO DI EFFETTI INTERRUTTIVI. Di fronte a una simile contestazione, il Comune si difenderà eccependo che ha adottato la riscossione diretta; che il titolo esecutivo non è il ruolo ma l’ingiunzione; che, pertanto, non può invocarsi la decadenza comminata dalla legge per la formazione del ruolo. È sostenibile una simile argomentazione? Ricordiamo che l’istituto della decadenza è volto a stabilizzare le situazioni giuridiche, anche tributarie. Il contribuente ha interesse a sapere se la sua posizione è definitiva, o se il fisco può ancora modificarla. Essendo la decadenza funzionale al superiore interesse pubblico della certezza dei diritti, non la si può eludere solo perché il Comune ha approvato il regolamento sulle entrate. È, pertanto, ininfluente che il titolo esecutivo sia l’ingiunzione, non potendo ciò tradursi nella compressione dei diritti del contribuente.Peraltro, l’articolo 2966 del Codice civile è molto rigoroso quando afferma che “la decadenza non if it is prevented from performance of the act provided by law. " The code does not allow equal merit, nor does it grant the power to make regulations on the law (Article 52, paragraph 6, of Decree 15 December 1997, n. 446). Just wanted to combine the code with the regulatory authority, the only way to avert the decline was, if anything, than to notify the order by the end of the year following the year for which taxes were due. But even so it happened. From this point of view, it is also insignificant that the municipality has issued "payment notices" remained unsolved. Such warnings are not provided by law, and, like all the administrative matter ai modelli legali, sono inidonei ad interrompere la prescrizione (Cassazione, 17 marzo 2005, n. 5798). A maggior ragione non hanno impedito la decadenza che, a differenza della prescrizione, non è nemmeno soggetta ad interruzione (articolo 2964 del Codice civile). Infine, l’imposizione sarebbe parzialmente legittima se si ritenesse applicabile il termine triennale della Finanziaria 2007. Si salverebbe, infatti, solo la tassa per il 2007, 2008 e 2009.
0 comments:
Post a Comment