I’ll tell you the bad news for investments 4.0
The inaugural victim of the complex regulatory and procedural interweaving linked to the NRP is the tax credit for investments in tangible and intangible assets that meet the "4.0" requirements, ie with a high technological and digital component. The in-depth study by Giuseppe Liturri
We have been warning for some time that the PNRR is not at all the path decorated with roses and flowers that many continue to tell. To be clear, the perplexities do not consist in a prejudicial opposition, but derive from a reasoned cost-benefit analysis about the modalities (conditions, obvious and hidden costs, organizational and procedural complexity) with which this plan of (necessary!) Investments will be carried out .
The thorns were already evident from the reading of the preliminary documents published by the Commission in May 2020 . In the following months – until the definition of the EU regulation last February – the thorns became bramble bushes and now here we are already licking our first wounds.
The inaugural victim of the complex regulatory, bureaucratic and procedural intertwining that was set up to manage the PNRR, is the 50% tax credit (40% from 2022) for investments in tangible and intangible assets meeting the "4.0" requirements, that is, with a high technological and digital component. A measure that, in various ways well known to entrepreneurs and consultants, has already existed since 2017 and has always been peacefully combined with other incentives such as the Sabatini Law or the tax credit for investments in the south. The only limit has always been the prohibition of exceeding 100% of the cost. But, from 2021 – also to make up the numbers and reach the 25% share of the PNRR dedicated to the digital transition – the incentive for "4.0" goods is financed by 13 billion of EU funds and another 5 of national funds and has entered the measure 1 of the PNRR under the name “ transition 4.0 ”. It must therefore necessarily comply with EU rules.
Among these, there is one that prohibits the "double financing" of the same cost. Nothing new, as it has always existed in the normal budget planning of the EU, aimed at preventing the same cost from receiving benefits from different Union instruments or programs. And this prohibition has also been included in the EU rules ( article 9 of regulation 241/2021) governing the PNRR. But – as often happens when EU regulations are implemented in Italy – on October 14, the Mef issued a circular signed by the General Accountant Biagio Mazzotta , in which a wise "hand", moreover well nestled in an attachment, extended the prohibition of double financing by adding, in addition to the EU instruments, also the " ordinary resources of the state budget ". Thus going well beyond the provision of the EU regulation.
Consequently, the ban on double financing for the same cost does not only concern Union instruments and programs, but extends to incentives financed from state budget resources. Therefore, any initiative financed by the PNRR will be characterized by the absolute prohibition of cumulation with any other type of facility.
Entrepreneurs who had planned or already carried out investments relying on the 4.0 subsidy, combined with the Sabatini law or the tax credit for investments in the South, or other regional aid such as the "umbrella" regime of the 2020 "Relaunch" decree , they will thus be forced to choose between the first concession and one of the others. These are the "gifts" of the EU.
In confirmation of the seriousness of the problem, it was SIMEST (a company controlled by the ministry of economy) that was the first to throw the stone into the pond, referring to the circular one in the FAQ to deny the cumulation of any other benefit with the incentives for digitization that is managing, always funded by the PNRR. The problem was then re-launched on the pages of the Sole 24 Ore , most recently last Thursday , and the alarm is now widely spread among all the insiders.
The most sensational example is that of the small entrepreneur from the south who wanted to digitize his company by counting, until yesterday, on an overall benefit equal to 95% of the cost (50% industry 4.0 and 45% "south bonus") from today – hoping that someone at the Mef does not even think of a retroactive retroactive effect – he will end up with an incentive almost halved.
But the seriousness of the affair is not only on the merits – once again we find ourselves with the EU which apparently offers us resources but in substance takes them away – but also on the merits. Can a circular become a source of law, not limiting itself to illustrating the content of a law but expanding its content? Or, alternatively, since we believe that no one casually writes certain things to the Accounting Office, we want to implicitly affirm that that prohibition on accumulation has always existed and from the offices in Via XX Settembre they have limited themselves to reiterating the obvious? Then they made a mistake in Brussels, because when they approved the PNRR they knew that the "4.0" incentive was cumulative – having been written in full length for months before in laws and circulars – and they did not bat an eye, letting Italian entrepreneurs plan investments by relying on accumulation.
Or we dare to hypothesize that the Mef wanted, by administrative means, to put a stop to a heap of incentives – in particular industry 4.0 and bonus south, but also the "Sabatini" – which was proving to be particularly burdensome for the state coffers, and then the trap was released.
However, until proven otherwise, we are still a parliamentary republic and the legislative power belongs to the Chambers and not to the ministerial bureaucrats.
We would not like to be in the presence of the usual Rome-Brussels ballet that we have already seen on stage with the roof on state aid for Covid, for which we understood only after we were shy in asking and not stingy in Brussels in granting. In the meantime, the Italian fairs have been without aid for almost a year .
When certain choices seem inspired by Tafazzi , it is no longer possible to hide behind " Europe is asking us " and it is good that clear answers on this matter come from the Ministry of the Economy and that Parliament reclaims the role that the Constitution gives it. reserve.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/primo-piano/investimenti-4-0/ on Sun, 05 Dec 2021 08:56:46 +0000.