Among the many active tax bonuses for the construction sector, the Superbonus 110% launched by the Relaunch Decree (DL 34/2020 converted by Law 77/2020) is certainly the one that presents the greatest convenience, as against an expense of 100 provides for a tax deduction of 110. Characteristic of this incentive is the possibility (also extended to other bonuses) to choose the method of use: the taxpayer can choose whether to take advantage of the deduction in the income tax return, to transfer the tax credit or to agree on a discount on the invoice.
Due to the way the facility has been structured, each option has technical advantages and disadvantages, to which some personal assessments by the taxpayer must be added, to make the most suitable and most convenient choice from his point of view.
Below we will see the case of the deduction, for an in-depth analysis on the other cases see the article Superbonus 110% at the convenience test: sale and discount on the invoice
1) The deduction
From a practical point of view, the tax deduction is probably the simplest way to manage the execution of the work and the recovery of the tax incentive. The planned works are paid for by the taxpayer who will then recover a deduction equal to 110% of the amounts paid by deducting them from the income taxes of the following 5 tax years.
Unfortunately, this way of taking advantage of the discount can come up against difficulties. The main limit is represented by the fact that the Superbonus, between leading and trailed interventions, provides for investments in restructuring of a significant amount: these will generate a tax deduction equivalent to 110% of the expenses incurred divided into 5 annual installments of the same amount: like all tax deductions, the amount not used in a tax year cannot be carried over to subsequent years but will be lost; as a consequence of this, the taxpayer who wants to opt for the deduction in the return will have to estimate whether the income received will generate sufficient tax for the total recovery of the deduction, a fact that, considering the importance of the planned interventions, cannot always be considered obvious.
Taxpayers who own income subject to separate tax or substitute tax collide even harder with this limit (for example, those who receive income from the sale of company shares, such as traders, or lump-sum taxpayers), as it is not possible to use the deduction to cancel this type of tax.
2) The incentive to deduct
Another issue of no secondary importance is the financial outlay: in this case it will be the taxpayer who will have to materially pay the suppliers. Given the possible relevance of the subsidized amounts, it will be important to make some considerations on this issue as well, for the purpose of a correct evaluation of the convenience between this possibility and the others envisaged.
In this case, the taxpayer will necessarily have to use own funds or third party funds taken as a loan. The incentive to take advantage of the facility in the form of a deduction is represented by the possibility of taking advantage of the additional 10% that the Legislator has decided to pay against expenses for a total of 100 (instead of using it to discount or sell the credit) .
If the taxpayer decides to invest his liquidity in this way, it is possible to say that the investment will have a guaranteed return of 10% total over 5 years. This possibility must be evaluated by comparing the percentage return to the yield offered by other financial instruments with an equivalent risk, such as Italian government bonds with short-term maturities. Considering the returns that this type of securities have today, such as Bots, in a European context that tends to be deflationary, the taxpayer could evaluate the possibility of considering the deduction as an investment. Without underestimating the fact that, by providing for the possibility of the transfer of the tax credit also in subsequent years, in the event of the basic conditions changing, it would always be possible to recover the invested liquidity.
Conversely, in the event that the taxpayer is forced to borrow the necessary sums, in light of the real rates (the so-called APR – Global Effective Annual Rate) required by financial operators (even in a context of interest rates such as the current ones), it is presumed that the remuneration of 10% is not sufficient to cover the cost of capital, generating a loss-making operation.
–
