da Marco Vergani | Gen 23, 2019 | Art and taxation
CryptoArt is a very recent artistic movement in which the artist produces works of art, typically fixed or animated images and often in close collaboration with the machine – not necessarily a computer but also, for example, a scanner or an old Polaroid – and distributes them using the blockchain technology and the Ipfs peer-to-peer (InterPlanetary File System) network.
But how does the CryptoArt system work? When an artist exhibit his work in a digital gallery a transaction was created in the Ethereum blockchain. The transaction creates and transfers a token that is uniquely associated with the artwork in the cryptographic portfolio of the artist. The transaction is digitally signed by the artist, using asymmetric cryptography, in order to prove the authenticity of the work.
The artwork (in fact its image in Jpeg format) is then input from the gallery in the Ipfs peer-to-peer network and distributed among the various nodes of the network. The Ipfs network baptizes the image with a unique code, which distinguishes its contents. This means that the same image, even if distributed on multiple nodes of the network, will always have the same name and will be conceptually identified as a single resource.
The digital work now begins its life (however immortal) on the blockchain. Anyone can admire it and buy it at the price set by the artist (many sales work by auction). The price is expressed in Ether, the third cryptocurrency by market capitalization after Bitcoin and Ripple. At the time of a possible purchase, a new transaction is entered into Ethereum: the token of the work passes into the portfolio of the buyer collector while the agreed Ether amount pass into the seller’s portfolio. The work, even after being sold, remains on the market and can still be traded. Each change of hands compensates, in percentage, also the original artist (a 10% of the sale price on most digital galleries). All these steps, which in the traditional art market take months or years to occur, thanks to this technology happen in a few moments, in a certified and safe way.
From a regulatory and fiscal point of view, there is still no specific and exhaustive legislation on the crypto currencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc..).
Let’s start by saying that, from the artist point of view, the Ethereum should be considered as foreign currency. So although there is not the specific need to declare the amount owned, he should however declare all the transactions carried out exactly as he do for those that occur in other currencies (Euro, Dollar, or others). And this applies, according to the fiscal laws of the residence country, to any cryptocurrency used.
Therefore, from the fiscal point of view for the seller, using Ethereum is exactly how to use Euro or Dollars: from a fiscal, bureaucratic or administrative point of view it does not change anything.
So even if the artist collects Ethereum and chooses to store them on its own wallet, if he were to sell them in the future and obtain a capital gain, he would have to pay taxes on it.
From the buyer point of view capital gains are taxed, but are paid only when they are recognized. So only when the work were sold, or at the close of the balance sheet, the capital gain could be recorded, and only on this the taxes would be paid.
da Marco Vergani | Nov 14, 2018 | Agevolazioni
L’ Agenzia delle Entrate, in relazione alle attività ammesse al credito d’imposta R&S, ha di recente chiarito con la R.M. 22.6.2018, n. 46/E che l’individuazione delle attività agevolabili deve avvenire in base ai criteri di classificazione definiti in ambito Ocse.
Pertanto, In base a tali criteri non possono ritenersi agevolabili quelle attività che siano carenti del requisito della novità (nel caso dell’istanza l’attività si limitava ad utilizzare gli ultimi ritrovati della tecnologia, senza tuttavia procedere ad una loro implementazione tecnologica) e del rischio finanziario (cioè dell’insuccesso tecnico o economico dell’attività di ricerca).
Con la R.M. 22.6.2018, n. 46/E l’Agenzia affronta il caso relativo alla riconducibilità tra le attività agevolabili di quelle relative ad un progetto posto in essere da una società attiva nel settore dell’organizzazione di eventi che intende avviare un programma di Ricerca&Sviluppo basato sulla progettazione, programmazione e realizzazione di software, di servizi web, app e di impianti tecnologici, avente la finalità di:
– colmare i gap attualmente presenti nei sistemi che gestiscono le attività correlate alla partecipazione alle manifestazioni, che generano errori e prevedono lo svolgimento di attività manuali;
– digitalizzare integralmente i flussi documentali;
– migliorare ed ampliare i database in modo da aumentare la qualità dei dati integrandoli con informazioni sui comportamenti degli utenti;
– sviluppare i processi di valutazione dei risultati operativi;
– creare nuovi ed innovativi servizi.
A tal fine richiede se le attività prospettate possano fruire del credito d’imposta R&S, e cioè se le attività prospettate dalla società interpellante rientrino o meno tra quelle di:
– ricerca fondamentale;
– ricerca applicata;
– sviluppo sperimentale
L’Agenzia delle Entrate innanzitutto chiarisce che le attività di R&S di cui art. 3, D.L. 145/2013 rinviano a quanto indicato dal par. 1.3, p.to 15 della Comunicazione della Commissione Ue (2014/C 198/01) del 27.6.2014 (Disciplina degli aiuti di Stato a favore di ricerca, sviluppo e innovazione) che, a sua volta, fa riferimento ai criteri di classificazione di tali attività definiti in ambito Ocse e, più in particolare, nel cd. Manuale di Frascati (Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development). Nel caso di specie l’Agenzia, acquisito il parere del Mise, evidenzia come le tecnologie introdotte per effetto della riorganizzazione, tra cui:
– le tecnologie di geolocalizzazione indoor basata su 6 dispositivi bluetooth LTE, quali i beacon fisici, i virtual beacon, tecnologie tipo QUUPPA o tecniche di localizzazione che utilizzano connessioni Wi-Fi;
– le tecnologie che applicano la cd. Realtà Aumentata per fornire contenuti personalizzati e finalizzati ad arricchire l’esperienza di visita presso la fiera;
– le tecnologie Digital Signage per la diffusione di contenuti e l’acquisizione di informazioni; le tecnologie di proximity marketing;
– le tecnologie di Big Data Analytics per l’applicazione di tecniche di Machine Learning e Cognitive Marketing;
risultino essere già ampiamente diffuse e disponibili in tutti i settori economici (incluso quello dei servizi) per accompagnare e realizzare la trasformazione tecnologica e la digitalizzazione dei processi produttivi secondo il paradigma Industria 4.0.
Pertanto, non sussiste né il requisito della novità, né quello del rischio finanziario (inteso come rischio imprenditoriale specificatamente correlato all’attività di ricerca sviluppo, la quale potrebbe non ottenere dei risultati tecnici, oppure tali risultati tecnici non siano accolti con favore dal mercato), fondamentali parametri che permettono di individuare le attività agevolabili ai fini del credito d’imposta R&S secondo le Linee guida richiamate.
Secondo il parere del Ministero interpellato si tratta di ordinarie attività realizzative di un programma di investimenti in capitale fisso; vale a dire, investimenti in beni strumentali (materiali e immateriali) direttamente impiegati nella realizzazione delle attività caratteristiche dell’impresa in quanto tali trattati sul piano economico-patrimoniale, nonché in sede di rappresentazioni di bilancio alla stregua di immobilizzazioni, non riconducibili tra quelle agevolabili ai fini del credito d’imposta in questione.
Da quanto evidenziato dall’Agenzia delle Entrate si può concludere quanto segue. Non è sufficiente avvalersi delle ultime tecnologie rese disponibili dal mercato per accedere al bonus, ma è necessario implementare dal punto di vista tecnico.
Nel caso di specie i software elaborati altro non facevano che utilizzare tecnologie già preesistenti, ponendole in correlazione al fine di migliorarne il rendimento complessivo, ma senza introdurre delle novità tecnologiche sostanziali nell’ambito di tali tecnologie (esempio, fornivano dati necessari per la fruizione della realtà aumentata ai partecipanti alla fiera, senza modificare la tecnologia che permette la fruizione della realtà aumentata, né quale sviluppo software sottostante che quale hardware).
Anche l’implementazione di software che si limitino ad aggregare le informazioni (Big Data) che vengono da macchinari avanzati, già sviluppati dalla tecnologia, non sono sufficienti a inquadrare tale implementazione nell’ambito della ricerca e sviluppo agevolabile.
da Marco Vergani | Ott 15, 2018 | IVA
The Budget Law 2018 (Law 205/2017) has established that starting from 1 January 2019 the electronic invoice will be mandatory: between taxable persons VAT resident, established or identified in Italy (B2B operations) to be sent through the Interchange System (Sdi) managed by the Inland Revenue Agency and towards final consumers (B2C). The circular 13 / E / 2018 provided that the taxable persons merely identified for VAT purposes in Italy, and not established in the country, are not obliged to issue an electronic invoice. This in consideration of the fact that Article 1, paragraph 909 of the Budget Law 2018, although it includes them expressly, must be interpreted in accordance with the authorization decision referred to in the Implementing Regulation 282/2011 of the EU Directive 2006/112. Consequently, the e-invoicing obligation only concerns taxable persons resident or established in Italy. On this point, the aforementioned document stated that non-residents identified for VAT purposes in Italy can be recipients of electronic invoices provided that they are guaranteed the possibility of obtaining a hard copy of the invoice if they request it.
da Marco Vergani | Ago 30, 2018 | Privacy on line
While many companies re still struggling with the adjustment to the 2016/679 regulation on data protection, for many of them the time is approaching to address the 2016/1148 directive on the security of networks and information systems, implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 65/2018 which came into force the last 24 June.
The recipients of the directive are: the digital service providers and the operators of essential services. The first, defined in Annex 3 of the decree, are search engines, online marketplaces and cloud computing service providers. The second category includes those specified in Annex 2: energy, transport, health, banks and financial market infrastructures, suppliers and managers of drinking water, digital infrastructures.
The precise definition of the subjects to whom the rule will be applicable will take place by November 9 when the ministries involved (Infrastructures and transport, Economic Development, Health, Economics and Environment) will have to provide timely identification. The chosen subjects will have to get to work, but if they have done well the tasks related to the GDPR the effort should not be so strong. In fact, the obligations established both for digital service providers (Articles 14, 15 and 16) and for operators of essential services (Articles 12 and 13) are very similar to the ones introducted by the GDPR. In general the law talk about “risk-adequate safety” and notification to the competent authorities, “without unjustified delay, of incidents having a significant impact”. It is impossible not to notice the evident overlap of these constraints to the provisions of the 2016/679 regulation contained in articles 32, where it obliges the adoption of “adequate technical and organizational measures to guarantee a level of safety appropriate to risk”, and 33, in which it is established that “in case of violation of personal data, the data controller shall notify the authority (…) without undue delay”.
On this basis, the transposition of the provisions of the directive, even in the complexity of defining when and how safety meets the requirement of “adequacy”, should find the companies rather prepared.
da Marco Vergani | Ago 29, 2018 | Contenuti digitali, E-commerce, IVA
The EU Directive 2017/2455, approved by the European Council on 5 December 2017, modifies the Directive 2006/112 / EC on VAT, introducing a series of simplifications concerning, on the one hand, the provision of telecommunications services, radio and television broadcasting on the other hand, the distance sales of goods, with a deferred date, respectively, from 1 January 2019 and 1 January 2021.
With specific reference to the news regarding the provision of telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic services, with effect from 1 January 2019, the Directive 2017/2455 / EU modifies the regulation of digital services carried out through the MOSS system (Mini One Stop Shop), introducing the following news:
– introduction of the annual threshold of € 10,000.00 below which these services remain taxable in the lender’s Member State of establishment;
– the rules governing the invoicing and retention of documentation relating to the provision of telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic services are those applicable in the Member State of identification of the provider using the MOSS system;
– extension of the MOSS also to taxable persons providing telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic services, if they are not established in the EU, but registered for VAT purposes in a member country;
– deferral of the deadline for submitting the quarterly declaration for the provision of telecommunications, broadcasting and electronic services, from day 20 to day 30 of the month following the reference quarter;
– faculty of the member countries to independently establish the period of conservation of the documentation related to the operations carried out using the MOSS, which therefore will no longer be the actual one equal to 10 years.
As shown in the preamble to Directive 2017/2455 / EU, the evaluation of the special regimes applicable to digital services has identified a number of areas that can be improved:
– Firstly, the need to reduce the burden on micro-enterprises established in a Member State that occasionally provide electronic services in other Member States in order to comply with VAT obligations in Member States other than that one of establishment justifies the introduction of a threshold , € 10,000.00, below which these services remain taxable in the member country of establishment;
– secondly, given that the obligation to comply with the billing and documentation requirements of all the Member States in which supplies of goods or services are made is very burdensome, in order to minimize the burden charged to the companies, it is provided that the rules for invoicing and storage of the documentation are those applicable in the Member State of identification of the seller / provider who apply the special regime;
– thirdly, the taxable persons who provide digital services, if they are not established in the EU but registered for VAT purposes in a Member State (for example because they carry out occasional transactions subject to VAT in that country), can not make use of the special regime for taxable persons not established in the EU, nor for the special regime for taxable persons established in the EU. As a result, it is now willing that such persons are authorized to make use of the special regime for taxable persons not established in the Union;
– fourthly, the assessment of the special schemes for the taxation of digital services, launched on 1 January 2015, has shown that the obligation to present the VAT declaration presupposes an excessively short deadline, ie 20 days from the end of the reference period, in particular, with regard to the services provided through a telecommunications network, an interface or a portal, if the services provided via this network, interface or portal, are presumed to be provided by the network operator, interface or portal, who is required to obtain the information from each individual service provider to complete the VAT declaration. The evaluation also highlighted that the obligation to make corrections to the VAT declaration is very burdensome for the taxable persons, as it may involve the need to resubmit various declarations every quarter. Consequently, the deadline within which the declaration must be presented is extended from day 20 to day 30 from the end of the reference quarter, with the possibility for taxable persons to correct previous declarations by means of a subsequent declaration, rather than in the declarations of the tax periods to which the corrections refer;
– fifth and last, the conservation period of documentation for the non-EU regime and the EU regime is expected to be the period defined by the Member State of identification of the taxable person, rather than the current 10-year period, which exceeds widely the requirements regarding the conservation of documentation in most of the member countries.
da Marco Vergani | Ago 28, 2018 | Assets immateriali
Among the incentives linked to the investments made in Italy, and probably among the least exploited despite the advantages it can give, there is the so-called indirect patent box. The tax reduction is linked to the income obtainable from the concession in use of some types of intangible assets (software, patents, industrial inventions, etc..). The differences with the more well-known direct or proper patent box consists mainly in the use of the intangible: in the first (the indirect one), the asset is granted in use to a subject outside the company, while in the direct one it is the same entrepreneur who uses it within his own activity (so-called substantial activity).
The two measures originate from a common normative provision, which allows the entrepreneur to benefit from a reduction consisting of 50% of the profit obtained from the exploitation of the asset immaterial. From a subjective point of view, all companies can benefit, regardless of the size or type of activity, which determine the taxable income with the classic analytical methodology. Also for the indirect patent box, the recognition of the incentive is subject – according to Article 6 of the Ministerial Decree of 30 July 2015 – to the fact that the intangible asset falls within those provided in paragraph 1 of the same decree.
However, indirect use is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for benefiting from the facilitation: in fact it is necessary that a positive taxable income is obtained from the indirect exploitation of the asset. The income eligible for this type of indirect exploitation is given by the difference between the fees obtained by the third party, deriving precisely from the exploitation of the asset, and the costs incurred by the grantor.
On the methods of calculation it is essential to dwell for some specific considerations:
– Revenues. First of all, for the purpose of this incentive, the concession must give rise to revenues for the grantor. It is therefore certainly a much simpler method of calculation because, unlike the direct patent box, there is no need (for obvious reasons) to calculate the figurative income resulting from the use of the intangible within the company.
– calculation. For the purposes of the calculation of the incentive, both costs directly related to the intangible asset and indirect costs are recognized.
– Costs. The significant expenses for the calculation must be mapped on the basis of the “tracking and tracing” scheme. Also in the indirect patent box it is essential to have a management accounting that allows to map all the costs connected to the facilitation (see article 11 of the ministerial decree).
– Research. An essential condition for obtaining the subsidy is that the grantor always carries out research and development activity attributable to the intangible eligible product (the so-called nexus ratio). The lack or absence of expenses related to research and development implies the impossibility of using the facility, as explained in Resolution 28/E of March 9, 2017.
