First home bonus? The Revenue Agency opposes the granting of aid to those taxpayers who own another house in the same municipality in which they intend to buy a house that is unsuitable to be inhabited. The Court of Cassation has a different opinion which, albeit still with some doubts, does not hinder the disbursement of the bonus to those who are already in possession of an unsuitable home. This is a diatribe that has been going on for many years.
But what are the conditions to access the bonus? According to the law, in order to benefit from the aid, the citizen must not already own a house in the Municipality in which he intends to buy a house, and he must not even have another house purchased previously with the same bonus throughout the national territory.
Years ago (we talk, as he remembers the sun 24 hours, of the deeds stipulated between January 24, 1993 and December 31, 1995), the law had allowed that the facility was not prevented by the fact that the taxpayer already owned an unsuitable home. Problems related to the definition of eligibility, however, they had led to a renunciation of the rule, which was set aside. For years, therefore, the owners of an unsuitable home were left out.
This situation remained at a standstill for 15 years, until the Cassation it did not express itself with judgments no. 18128/2009 and n. 100/2010. In both cases, it was reiterated that the current law prevents the granting of the concession in the event of possession of another home, that is, implicitly, of a house suitable for living in. Therefore, if the taxpayer is in possession of a property unsuitable to be inhabited, it can actually be considered as homeless. It is therefore his right to get the bonus to buy his first home.
In which cases, therefore, can you not benefit from the facilitation? The bonus is prevented when the taxpayer is already in possession of a suitable property in the same municipality in which he intends to buy a house, or if he has already used the facility to buy a house, located in any area of the national territory. In the latter case, in particular, not only the prepossession of a “full” property right, but also the prepossession of a “naked” property right.
The sun 24 hours reports, for example, the case in which the seller has held the right of usufruct, giving up the bare ownership, or that in which the same seller is the naked owner of the property and has decided to alienate this right to a buyer, who has purchased through first home bonus. It follows, therefore, that theunsuitability of the property only when it is located in the same municipality in which you intend to buy a house and has not been purchased through a concession.