– The European Commission has informed the European Council which is opposed to the Italian request for a derogation to extend the “reverse charge” VAT to large retailers because they do not is in line with Article 395 of the Directive on value added. The “split payment”, underlines the EU Commission, is still under review. The measure, introduced by the government Renzi with the Law of Stability 2015, worth about 700 million in the budget.
Paolo Del Dosso
For the EU Commission “there is sufficient evidence that the requested measure would help to combat fraud. And it is also of the opinion that such a measure would imply a high risk of displacement Fraud in the retail sector and other states, “said Vanessa Mock, spokesperson for Commissioner taxation Pierre Moscovici.
Brussels, says the communication sent to the Council,” has always had an approach cautious to ensure that the exemptions do not go to undermine the operation of the general VAT system, which are limited, necessary and proportionate. Any deviation from the system of fractioned payment can not be that an emergency measure and ‘last resort’ in proven cases of fraud, and should offer guarantees on the need and exceptional nature of the derogation, the duration of the measure and the nature of the products. The procedure of ‘reverse charge’ should not be used systematically to mask inadequate supervision of the tax authorities of a State “.
The Commission” has reason to doubt that blanket application and global ‘reverse charge ‘to a large number of products, in this case mainly for consumption end, could be considered a special measure provided for in Article 395 of the VAT Directive. “Moreover, the Commission” has serious doubts that the measure would impact positive and expect the Italian authorities, “because it is suitable for the prevention of ‘carousel fraud’ but not all the other leading evasion of VAT.
Finally,” the Italian authorities have not established “that for the type of goods in question is impossible to control through conventional means, which would have justified the need for implementation of the” reverse charge “.
Sources MEF: nom triggered the clause Excise – Do not triggered the increase in excise duties on fuels, expected as the safeguard clause from June 30, to cover the non European to reverse charge VAT. “There is a firm commitment of the government – explain sources Mef – not to trigger the safeguard clauses”. The European Commission’s decision “was one of the possibilities – explain the same sources – and the Ministry of Economy has monitored the decisions of the Community”.
One month to find an alternative solution – In practice, the choice of the EU has not taken by surprise therefore that the Treasury has about a month to defuse the clause protects it plans to increase the rates of excise duties on petrol and diesel used as fuel “by order of the Director of the Customs and Monopolies to be adopted by 30 June 2015 “.
Renzi:” The safeguard clause will not take “ – After the EU Commission denied the application for a derogation to extend the “reverse charge” (reverse charge) to large retailers – problem that opens a “hole” by 728 million – “the safeguard clause will not fire under any circumstances.” He assured, “strongly”, the Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, while saying he did not agree with the position of the EU.
Before you can send, reply to or vote on a comment, you must be registered and login
Registration Login X
Rules for comments
The comments on this page are checked
We encourage you to use respectful language and not offensive, even for the harshest criticism
In particular, during the action of monitoring, we reserve the right to remove comments that:
– are not relevant to the topics covered on the website and in the TV program
– have contained vulgar, obscene or violent
– Let intimidating or defamatory towards people, other people, institutions and religions
– More generally violates the rights of third parties
– Promote illegal activities
– Promote commercial products or services
X
No comments:
Post a Comment