Correction IRS Circular No. 33 / H

It has already happened with Circular no. 23 / E on June 23, 2022 When I report two small lines that a typo has been corrected (which was not a typo as it relates to the expiration date of the 110% super bonus usage for single family buildings). Now, we go again, but this time he did not even report two lines of the correction that the Revenue Agency deemed necessary to be made on the new Circular no. 33 / Aug 6 October 2022this time also on the issue regarding the deadline for single family homes but this time in relation to the requirement of 30 September 2022 to go forward with the extension until 31 December 2022.

Let’s go in order. We left the article you wrote yesterday.”Superbonus 110%, 1 Family Supplement & 30% SAL: Unbelievable but real“The matter which sparked a lot of controversy just because there was an inconsistency reported in Paragraph 7 of the Circular which states:

So, for example, in the case of a blanket intervention at a cost of €100,000, of which €60,000 is for expenses related to building renovation work (of which 50 percent is currently scheduled to be deducted under Article 16 of Decree-Law 63 of June 4, 2013, which was its transfer with modifications by law of August 3, 2013, No. 90) and 40,000 euros of expenses related to interventions acceptable to the Superbonus, You can take advantage of this last discount Also for expenses incurred until December 31, 2022 If on September 30 executedfor acceptable interventions in the Superbonus, Payments in the amount of 12,000 euros refer to the works already carried out.

It remains to be understood, in fact, that in order to achieve the proportion required by law, Payment is not enough of the amount corresponding to 30 percent of the works, if this does not correspond to the actual state of the interventions, given the wording of the provision referring to the works carried out on the above-mentioned date of September 30, to be completed in at least 30 percent of the total intervention ( See the June 21, 2022 written answer to the question for an immediate answer in Committee No. 5-08270).

Given that the Italian language is not an opinion and that the legislation of the initial level states something else (Article 119, paragraph 8 bis, second sentence, Decree-Law No. 34/2020), I reported the tax error in that I requested two terms of access to the extension:

• push work
• Business already completed.

Conditions were not predicted according to the criterion that spoke only of the interventions that were made.

Here is the offending part of the circular:

Here is the correct part of the generalization in its second version: