Real Estate Taxation Cases related to Municipal Real Estate tax (IMI) assume a greater quantitative expression in the framework of real estate taxation. In 2016 they ranked 3rd among the tax affairs more often object of complaint. There has been a relevant increase in cases opened on this subject, in particular regarding the loss of exemptions. In the vast majority of cases it relates to the loss of the exemption currently provided for in article 11 of the Municipal Real Estate tax code (CIMI), for low-tax value real estate, owned by low-income taxpayers. The reason most often found to be the cause of the loss of this exemption was not the change in the financial position of the taxpayer but, instead, the increase in the tax value of the real estate, as a result of the general evaluation of urban real estate recently completed. For this reason, in communication addressed to the State Secretary for Tax Affairs, dated 12 August, on issues of real estate taxation, the Ombudsman stressed the fact that the incomes of households do not have accompanied proportionally the growth of tax value of real estate. Hence, the limits foreseen in the law – € 15 295,00 to the total gross household income and € 66 500,00 for the overall tax value of all real estate belonging to the household – should be updated in order to ensure the respect for constitutional imperatives of the right to housing and the right to private property. In the communication, this State body has taken over another issue related to the real estate taxation not yet discussed with this Government, i.e., the problem of application of article 28 of the General Stamp Duty Chart (TGIS), giving rise to stamp duty on property rights, usufruct, alternately or jointly, and the right to surface on urban real estate, with tax value equal to or greater than one million euros for the purposes of IMI. In response, coming at the end of October, this State body was informed that the draft State budget for 2017 included a provision revoking article 28 of the TGIS. However, as regards tax assessments already made, whose legality, in some cases, the Ombudsman questioned, nothing was reported. Similarly, it was not received any information about updating the limits for recognition of exemption provided for in article 11-B of the CIMI. The inadequacy of the response was reported to the State Secretary for Tax Affairs. Thus, those issues will continue to be monitored in 2017. Other tax issues In 2016 it was possible to resolve, fairly, some situations related to the imposition of fines, having this State body, again, counted with the good collaboration of the Tax Justice Department of AT. 42 |