da Marco Vergani | Set 8, 2020 | Taxation in Italy
The stock options must be taxed in the residence country at the vesting period, so if an employee in that period has carried out the job activity in Italy, the tax will take place in this country. This is the content of Agenzia delle Entrate’s reply n. 316 of 7th September 2020.
The taxpayer worked from 2003 to August 2016 in Italy, and then moved to Switzerland from September 2016 to June 30, 2019, enrolling in Aire. In 2010 he received stock options linked to an incentive plan for executives which provided for a vesting period of 3 years, starting from February 26, 2013, fully accrued while working in Italy. The exercise of the options took place on 31 and 19 August 2019. The taxpayer would like to tax income in Switzerland, where he was resident at the time of exercising the stock options.
The Agenzia delle Entrate’s opinion is different. First of all, according to Article 2, paragraph 2-bis, of the Tuir (decree 917/86), Italian citizens who have been canceled from the registries of the resident population and transferred to States or territories with a privileged tax regime (identified with ministerial decree of 4 May 1999) are considered tax-residents in Italy. This is a relative legal presumption which places the burden of proof on the taxpayer and which is also valid in the case of Switzerland, included in the list. With regard to the employment income, to which the fringe benefit is also connected, on the national side, taxation is established by articles 49 and 51 of the Tuir, while article 23, paragraph 1, letter c) establishes that income from employment performed in the territory of the State is considered realized in Italy. It is then necessary to look at the Italy- Switzerland convention. Now the OECD model also includes stock options in employee income (paragraph 2.1), clarifying that we look at the place where the activity is carried out, regardless of the time when the income is paid (paragraph 2.2) and the fact that taxation occurs when the employee no longer works in that State (paragraphs 12.1 and 12.3). In line with the OECD criteria, the connection with the Italian territory exists if in the vesting period (period of maturity of the right) the employee worked in Italy (circular 17 / E / 17 part III paragraph 2.1). Since the employee worked for the Italian office during the entire duration of this period, the corollary is the full taxation of the fringe benefit in Italy.
da Marco Vergani | Set 3, 2020 | Art and taxation, IVA, Taxation in Italy
Original figurative sculptures realized with three-dimensional FDM printers (fused deposition modeling), are not considered “artworks” and therefore the italian 22% VAT rate (instead of 10%) should be applied. This was established by Agenzia delle Entrate in the official answer n. 303 to an artist who, as a sculptor, created objects that he considered works of art; the three-dimensional realization means that the object obtained, with plastic material, has a real shape and can be seen from all sides. Subsequently, the artist painted the work obtained by the printer (some examples can be admired in the science museum of Trento).
The taxpayer requested the application of 10% VAT based on item 127 septiesdecies of table A, part three “art objects sold by the authors and their heirs”.
Agenzia delle Entrate responds negatively, stating that the sale of the goods is subjected to the 22% VAT rate as the reduced rate is applicable for the original works of statutory art or sculptural art, of any material as long as they are carried out entirely by the artist; if they are reproduced, it must be a limited edition of eight copies, controlled by the artist.
So, according to the Agency, the procedure adopted does not correspond to the legislative provisions, taking into account the quantity of objects produced. Furthermore, in this case the works are not made entirely by the artist himself, but are made in whole or in part through the use of mechanical procedures such as the 3D printer – FDM, modeling software, while the artist’s manual intervention is marginal; lacking this contribution, the good obtained is not an “artwork”.
da Marco Vergani | Ago 31, 2020 | Impatriate workers, Internet
The clarifications provided by Agenzia delle Entrate in the question 956-61 / 2020 are interesting because they concern work activities in the digital sector that are typically “mobile” and can be exercised remotely.
The case concerns a natural person with dual citizenship, French and Italian, who has never resided in Italy and is registered with Aire.
In 2019 the person ceased professional activity in France and, in March 2020, moved to Sardinia to start a self-employment activity as a marketing and social consultant
Furthermore, the former professional intends to undertake an entrepreneurial activity for the online sale of video products. In particular, the request was made for clarification regarding the possibility of benefiting from the special regime:
(a) in the case of joint self-employment and business activities, even if the latter was started after the transfer of residence and the beginning of the consultancy activity;
(b) in the event that the entrepreneurial activity was exercised through a company with an option for the tax transparency regime reserved for companies with a limited corporate base (Article 116 of the TUIR).
With the new law introduced by Legislative Decree 34/2019, from 2020 workers who were resident abroad in the two tax periods before the transfer to Italy are entitled to benefits and undertake to reside in Italy for at least two years by carrying out the work mainly in the Italian territory.
They are entitled to the tax exemption for personal income tax purposes, for five years, of 70% of the salaried or self-employed income produced in our country. The regime also applies to those who start a new business. For those who move to a municipality in the South (including the islands), the tax deduction rises to 90 percent.
Furthermore, the benefits extend for a further five years, with a 50% tax reduction in this additional time frame, in the case of workers with at least one child or who purchase residential properties in Italy (within the first five years).
With the subsequent Legislative Decree 124/2019, the concessions were extended to subjects who transferred their residence from 30 April 2019 with effect from the 2019 tax period.
As for the first question, Agenzia delle Entrate believes that, in the presence of a “functional” connection between the transfer of residence in Italy and the start of a work activity, income deriving from other activities undertaken in tax periods following the transfer (but within the eligible five-year period) may also be included in the concession.
On the second question, the answer starts from the observation that the legislation in question refers to the income “produced” by the workers: therefore, the income generated by limited liability companies and by commercial partnerships would be excluded even if charged in transparency regime (articles 116 and 5 of the TUIR) to “impatriate” natural persons members. Basically, subsidized business income would only be those produced by the individual entrepreneur.
da Marco Vergani | Lug 21, 2020 | Music and taxation, SIAE
Supponiamo che una società del settore dell’intrattenimento intenda lanciare una propria web radio (o una web tv) come strumento di marketing (brand radio in-store). Come vanno trattati i relativi costi, inclusi quelli delle licenze di trasmissione dei brani audio, dal punto di vista contabile e fiscale?
Premettiamo innanzitutto che i costi sostenuti per la creazione di una web radio possono essere iscritti in bilancio alla voce B.I.1 («Costi di impianto e di ampliamento») se sono relativi all’inizio di una nuova attività o all’ampliamento della società, inteso come una vera e propria espansione della stessa in direzioni e in attività precedentemente non perseguite. In alternativa potrebbero essere iscritti alla voce B.I.3 se sono assimilabili alla creazione di un sito web.
In ogni caso, la capitalizzazione dei costi deve rispettare le condizioni richieste dal principio contabile Oic24.
La rilevazione iniziale dei costi di impianto e di ampliamento nell’attivo dello Stato patrimoniale è consentita solo se si dimostrano la congruenza e il rapporto causa–effetto tra i costi in questione e il beneficio (futura utilità) che dagli stessi la società si attende, mentre per i diritti di brevetto la capitalizzabilità è subordinata alla possibilità di fruire dei benefici economici futuri derivanti dal bene stesso, e alla possibilità di limitare l’accesso da parte di terzi a tali benefici. In ogni caso, il costo dev’essere stimabile con sufficiente attendibilità.
Dal punto di vista fiscale, i costi di impianto e di ampliamento sono deducibili a norma dell’articolo 108, comma 1, del Tuir (Dpr 917/1986) nel limite della quota civilistica imputabile a ciascun esercizio, mentre le quote di ammortamento del costo dei diritti di utilizzazione di opere dell’ingegno, dei brevetti industriali, di processi, formule e informazioni relativi a esperienze acquisite in campo industriale, commerciale o scientifico sono deducibili in misura non superiore al 50% del costo (articolo 103, comma 1, del Tuir).
da Marco Vergani | Lug 7, 2020 | Diritto d'autore, Music and taxation
I musicisti/producer con partita Iva forfettaria che ricevono proventi a titolo di diritto d’autore dalle proprie label possono manifestare dei dubbi circa il corretto trattamento fiscale di tali proventi.
L’Agenzia delle Entrate è intervenuta sul punto nella risposta ad interpello n. 517 del 12 dicembre 2019, secondo la quale i proventi a titolo di diritti d’autore conseguiti da un contribuente che applica il regime forfetario, mantengono le proprie modalità di determinazione del reddito imponibile (tassazione con riduzione del 25% ovvero del 40%, a seconda dell’età del percipiente) ma vengono assoggettati all’imposta sostitutiva.
Normalmente i contratti discografici con le label che garantiscono la distribuzione in formato digitale sulle principali piattaforme (Spotify, ecc..), dell’opera musicale, effettuano il pagamento delle royalties solo al superamento del c.d. “break even point” ossia l’ammontare dei costi di promozione (o anche di eventuale produzione) del disco anticipati all’artista dall’etichetta stessa in sede di stipula del contratto.
Superata questa soglia l’artista si vede finalmente accreditate le somme relative alle royalties spettanti secondo le percentuali pattuite nel contratto.
Secondo l’Agenzia delle Entrate, se l’artista che percepisce le royalties è in regime forfettario, tali proventi:
- sono ridotti del 25% (o del 40% se sono percepiti da soggetti di età inferiore ai 35 anni), ai sensi del comma 8 dell’articolo 54 Tuir,
- tale importo è cumulato con gli altri compensi percepiti dal professionista soggetti alle ordinarie aliquote di abbattimento forfetario al fine di applicare l’imposta sostitutiva.
Pertanto, i diritti d’autore mantengono la propria modalità di determinazione dell’importo tassabile, ma poi vengono assoggettati all’imposta sostitutiva (5% o 15%) propria del regime forfettario.
E’ bene infine ricordare che i proventi conseguiti a titolo di diritti d’autore concorrono alla verifica della soglia di 65.000 euro relativa ai ricavi o compensi incassati nel corso del periodo d’imposta, per verificare la permanenza o meno del contribuente nel regime (ricordando che il superamento di tale soglia comporta la fuoriuscita dal periodo d’imposta successivo quello di superamento stesso).
da Marco Vergani | Mag 12, 2020 | Taxation in Italy
Repatriating one or more stages of production carried out across the border by a subsidiary company or by a foreign branch could be necessary due to the emergency linked to the spread of coronavirus.
In the planning of the return to Italy, it must first be remembered that, for tax purposes, the tax period must be considered in a uniform manner. The headquarter transfer does not determine two different tax periods and, consequently, it is necessary to verify whether, in the year of repatriation, the company should be considered resident in Italy or abroad.
According to article 73, of Presidential Decree 917/1986 (Tuir) a person is considered resident for tax purposes when he has at least one of the elements in Italy for most of the tax period that suggest residence (registered office, administrative headquarters, or corporate purpose).
Taking into account that 2020 is a leap year, this condition occurs when the 184 days are exceeded. Simplifying, therefore, if a company transfers its headquarters in Italy by 1 July 2020, it is considered resident in Italy from that year. However, it is necessary to verify how the transfer of the registered office in Italy is treated by the legislation of the foreign state for the different effects that may arise (i.e. time of cancellation of the company from the Register of companies). In the previous example, therefore, the repatriated company will be fiscally resident in Italy in 2020 if the cancellation from the foreign business register takes place by 1 July 2020. If, however, the transfer qualifies as a dissolution hypothesis, the company will assume as the initial date of it’s tax period in Italy, the one of the transfer, regardless of whether it occurs in the first or second part of the year.
The tax valuation criteria of the assets and liabilities belonging to the company moved to Italy are defined by article 166-bis of the Tuir .
The first assessment must be made based on the location of the foreign company.
- If it comes from a state belonging to the EU or white list (Ministerial Decree of 4 September 1996), the incoming tax value of the assets and liabilities is the market value.
- The same criterion also applies in cases of origin from non-EU states or non-white lists in the event of an agreement following rulings based on article 31-ter of Presidential Decree 600/73.
- In the other cases the entry tax value of the assets is assumed to be the lower of the purchase cost, the book value and the market value; for liabilities, however, the higher of the same values must be assumed.
Finally, it should be noted that, if the subject of the transfer is a company or a business unit, the value must be considered taking into account the goodwill.
