The case submitted to the Agency
A subject resident abroad has completed the restoration of an ancient building from the 16th century, which was subject to preservation constraints. The authorization for the works has been provided by the Superintendence for cultural assets, even though the State has no pre-emption right, in case of sale of the building
The applicant asks whether the 19% deduction, provided for in article 15, paragraph 1, lett. g) of TUIR may be applied to the case in object. The deduction concerns listed buildings and works subject to prior authorization by the Superintendence.
The Revenue Agency’s response
Art. 15, par. 1, lett. g) of TUIR provides for a 19% deduction for expenses incurred by subjects bound to maintain, preserve or restore listed buildings, in accordance with legislative decree 42/2004.
The expenses shall be deemed necessary by the competent Superintendence of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage. Moreover, the deduction does not apply in case of: absence of any prior authorization to change the destination of the assets, failure to comply with legal obligations on pre-emption rights, and attempted unauthorized export.
Memorandum n. 14/E of June 19th 2023 confirms that the deduction applies to the subjects bound by legislative decree 42/2004. As of 2012, The Ministry of Culture requires the submission of a substitutive declaration of the deed of notoriety for the expenses.
In the additional documentation, the applicant’s request states that the property is subject to protection according to regional law, and it is located in an Alpine area, inside a National Park, at an altitude exceeding 1600 meters. The applicant asks whether the protection under decree or regional law is sufficient for the deduction or a specific provision needs to be notified and transcribed.
The Ministry states that the deduction only applies to cultural assets of recognized interest and that protection by law is not sufficient. Based on the information provided, neither the cultural interest of the building nor the certification of the expenses appear. Thus, the applicant may not benefit from the fiscal deduction according to the Ministry’s opinion. Such opinion is based on the documents provided and on the presumption of their veracity and concrete execution.