Imu with 50% discount for unusable properties, self-certification is enough

For properties that are declared unusable and which, consequently, cannot be used by the owners because they are uninhabitable, a 50% IMU discount is provided even with self-certification of the state of the property.
Various orders from the Court of Cassation reiterate these principles, including order no.
1263 of 21 January 2021 and order no.
19665 of 11 July 2023 of the Court of Cassation, both in application of article 13 paragraph 3, letter.
b, of Legislative Decree 6 December 2011, n.
201, converted, with amendments, by Law 22 December 2011, n.
214.
In these ordinances, the Court of Cassation underlines the importance of the principle of collaboration and good faith between taxpayers and the taxing body.
It follows that if the Municipality is aware of the unusable state of the property, the 50% reduction in the tax is due even in the event of failure to submit the IMU declaration.
For buildings declared unusable, uninhabitable and effectively unused, the taxpayer has the right to present a self-certification for the 50% tax reduction, as an alternative to the verification of the status of the property by the municipal technical office with appraisal paid by the owner.
read also Imu and Tari 2023 second home: when are reductions and exemptions due? Imu with 50% discount for unusable properties Imu for unusable and unused properties, 50% discount with self-certification When is a property considered unusable and unusable? When is self-certification enough? IMU reduction of 50%, the principle of collaboration and good faith applies to IMU for unusable and unused properties, 50% discount with self-certification.
The IMU taxable base is reduced by half for buildings declared unusable or uninhabitable and in fact not used, limited to the period of the year during which this condition exists.
Article 13, paragraph 3, letter b, reiterates access to the 50% reduction in the tax for buildings declared unusable or uninhabitable and in fact not used, limited to the period of the year during which these conditions exist.
The unusability or uninhabitability is ascertained by the municipal technical office with an appraisal carried out by the owner, who attaches suitable documentation to the declaration.
Alternatively, the taxpayer has the right to submit a substitute declaration pursuant to the consolidated text referred to in the decree of the President of the Republic of 28 December 2000, n.
445, compared to what was foreseen in the previous period.
For the purposes of applying the reduction by half of the tax base, the municipalities can regulate the characteristics of supervening dilapidation of the building, which cannot be overcome with maintenance interventions.
It is therefore the municipal technical office that ascertains the unusability or uninhabitability of the property , with appraisal paid by the owner.
Alternatively, it is possible to make use of the self-certification, in the form of a substitute declaration pursuant to the consolidated text referred to in the decree of the President of the Republic of 28 December 2000, n.
445.
Ordinance 19665 of 2023 also reiterates that the continuing state of unusability and uninhabitability of the property does not require the reiteration for the future of a specific request by the taxpayer to take advantage of the IMU reduction of 50%.
In this case it is sufficient for the taxing body to be aware of the subsequent and prolonged unusability of the property.
When is a property considered unusable and unusable? A property is considered unusable when its physical deterioration cannot be restored by ordinary or extraordinary building interventions.
We are therefore faced with unsafe, ruined or crumbling buildings.
By way of example, buildings may be considered unusable if they have floors and roofs with such serious damage that they constitute a risk of collapse, or, again, buildings with perimeter walls with such serious damage that they could lead to partial or total collapse.
But also those buildings for which the Municipality has issued demolition or restoration orders aimed at avoiding damage to third parties.
When is self-certification enough? The order of the Court of Cassation n.
1263 of 21 January 2021, reiterates that: "in the case of a property that is unusable, uninhabitable and in any case effectively unused, the tax must be reduced to 50 percent, pursuant to Legislative Decree no.
30 December 1992.
504, art.
8, paragraph 1, and if said conditions of unusability or uninhabitability ascertainable by the local authority or in any case self-certifiable by the taxpayer remain for the entire year, the facilitated treatment must extend to the entire relevant time period, as well as for subsequent periods, where they exist the same factual conditions." In short, it is not necessary for the taxpayer to provide the Municipality with information that is already known.
If the latter is aware of the unusable state of the property, the payment of the IMU in full is excluded, even in the absence of the request for a 50% discount.
Imu reduction of 50%, the principle of collaboration and good faith applies.
The relationship between tax authorities and taxpayers is based on the principle of collaboration and good faith.
This is not a wish, but rather a principle established by law, by the Taxpayer's Statute (law no.
212 of 2000, article 10, paragraph 1).
It is not the first time that the Court of Cassation has remembered this.
In this specific case, it does so to reiterate that the Municipality cannot ask the taxpayer to pay a tax that is not due, even more so when it is aware of the elements that lead to access to discounts and tax breaks.
In the ordinance of 21 January 2021 it is therefore reiterated that: "when the state of unusability is perfectly known to the Municipality, the payment of ICI in full is excluded even if the taxpayer has not submitted a request to take advantage of the benefit of the 50% reduction % taking into account the principle of collaboration and good faith that must characterize the relationships between the tax body and the taxpayer (Law no.
212 of 2000, art.
10, paragraph 1), of which the rule according to which the taxpayer does not proof of facts documented by the tax authority may be requested (Law no.
212 of 2000, art.
6, paragraph 4).” In short, collaboration and prohibition on producing documents relating to facts already known to the tax authority.
The Court of Cassation once again reiterates two important principles in the relationship between taxpayers and public administrations, which are still difficult to apply today.
read also Imu 2023, you don't always pay: the low amount cancels the payment