Eni, Enel, A2a, Edison. Does the draghian tax on extra profits work?
Facts, numbers and scenarios on the effectiveness of the tax on energy extra-profits. Giuseppe Liturri's analysis
The harsh reprimand by Mario Draghi during the press conference on 4 August and article 42 of the "Aid-bis" decree will be enough to convince companies in the energy sector to pay the 10 billion (out of 11 planned) of receipts that are missing. appeal? We will find out shortly after August 31, the deadline granted to taxpayers for any industrious repentance.
The sensational flop of this size was also highlighted by Draghi himself in front of journalists.
"It is not tolerable that at this moment there is a sector that circumvents a government provision", was the harsh comment of the President who presented a first package of corrective actions. In fact, in that decree the penalties are halved to 15% for those who repent by August 31, and then double them to 60% for subsequent payments. On that occasion, Draghi added that, in case of insufficient response, further restrictions would come.
Predictable reaction after the advance on June 30 had provided the misery of 900 million out of the 4.2 planned. This had led the Mef technicians to prudently reduce the revenue available in the budget by approximately 9 billion.
Widely foreseeable events that we had brought to the attention of our readers already on March 22 last – as usual well in advance and in almost total solitude – at the time of the announcement of the measure. In fact, you didn't even need a masters degree in tax law to realize that haste had given birth to many blind kittens.
Starting from the expected revenue. How is it possible that an additional tax – because this is what it is, beyond the persuasive name of “extraordinary solidarity contribution” – of 25% can provide almost a third of the total IRES revenue? Therefore, there already seems to be an overestimation at the start, also considering that only 7 months are considered from October 2021 to April 2022, compared to the same period of the previous year. To which was then added a behavior of the companies involved which seems to be a deliberate choice. In fact, it should be noted that of the 11 thousand companies in the energy sector involved, about 98% are medium-small and, according to the Mef's calculations, they should have generated half of the revenue. The other half was expected by giants in the sector (A2A, Edison, Eni, Enel, etc …) listed companies with systems of corporate governance that are certainly among the most advanced and stringent. In short, here we are not in the presence of avoidance, as claimed by Draghi, but of possible subtraction from the payment of a tax because it is considered legally unfounded and it is chosen to await the assessment, the consequent tax bill and challenge everything. before the tax courts. At that time, raise the objection of unconstitutionality and bring the matter before the Constitutional Court. It was most likely a question of the prudent appreciation of the directors of those companies who considered, in that way, to defend the interests of their respective shareholders. It is mainly wisdom rather than avoidance which, in the limit, could intervene when calculating the tax base. On this front, in a few weeks, we already have two documents of the Revenue Agency that have gone into the details of the tax calculation methods and have immediately revealed the many nuances of interpretation that can lead companies to suffer a lesser or greater burden. taxable.
All this because it was decided to calculate the extra profits on a strange heap that is light years away from a correct measure of contributory capacity. In other words, if you choose to measure your fever by placing your hand on your head rather than using the thermometer, it is highly likely that a mess will come out. Some readings will be overestimated and others underestimated. And this is what happened by taking as a reference the difference between active and passive transactions for VAT purposes and considering them a measure of any extra profits. An approximation that would not have allowed the passing of a university exam in business administration or tax law, has instead ended up in the Official Gazette. And on which the constitutional judges could drop their ax.
To further worsen the picture, the toxic effects of the 2015 Constitutional Court ruling are manifesting, which rejected an IRES surcharge on energy companies ( Robin Hood Tax ), denying however the right to reimbursement for companies that had already paid. By unreasonably dividing taxpayers into two categories: those who had not paid and had their reasons recognized before the Court and those who had done so and were definitively affected by the unconstitutional tax.
With this precedent, who would dare today to pay the higher tax requested by Draghi, risking to be denied reimbursement in case of success before the judges of the Council?
Finally, the latest restrictive measures of the government do not appear destined to be a great success. In fact, those who have not paid the advances as at 30 June have not reasonably done so for reasons of lack of liquidity, so they could take advantage of the window offered by the government by paying on 31 August. It did so, as previously explained, on the basis of accurate assessments of its company's tax liability.
What should change between June 30 and August 31 in the assessments of those who have not paid? Should businesses be shaken by Draghi's intimidating tone, which exposed them to social discredit by accusing them of starving families in need of help?
Just wait a few weeks. Or perhaps a few months, when a new government could rewrite the rule so that it conforms to our Charter.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/energia/tassa-extraprofitti-energia-funziona/ on Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:11:57 +0000.