|
|
Year
XVII n.04-01
|
|
|
Amedeo Pavone
|
|
|
|
A recent decision issued by the Regional Appellate Tax Commission of Rome, section no. 14, against which the Tax Offices have not appealed to the State Commission thereby making it immediately executive, has decreed, in no uncertain terms: “The ENPAM (National Organisation for Illness Assistance Security) benefit must be taxed at the fixed tax rate of 12.5% on the part constituting the difference between the sum paid out and the total amount of the premiums paid in. It must prepare to reimburse the amounts withheld in excess of this amount compared with the tax system described above.” In issue no. 9/2000 of Leadership Medica, we have made an in depth report on the absurd reasoning of a Revenue office, which expects to tax the ENPAM benefits and pension payments at the same rate as a normal working income. However, it is quite clear that, since these involve contributions made to a private foundation to be accrued into personal accounts, there are obvious analogies with the deposits made to an insurance company for a normal life insurance policy. The Regional Commission was drastic, recognising the applicability in the tax legislation of the principle of equalisation of the ENPAM payments to the capital paid out as a consequence to life insurance policies since it “constitutes non-speculative remuneration of amounts accrued gradually over the years”. As we can easily see, the decision, while referring to a capital liquidation, also makes express reference to pensions that are equivalent to a lifetime annuity. The Tax Offices went no further and accepted restitution of the amount of the partial payment in excess of 12.50% already withheld by ENPAM at the time of the first liquidation without appealing to the higher State Commission, evidently because they were attempting to confine the application of the regulation exclusively to the case examined by the Regional Tax Commission. A possible definitive decision by the Supreme Jurisdictional Body would have had a value “erga omnes” and therefore it would have been impossible to limit its applicability. Of course, as far as the Italian Revenue Service is concerned, we are all tax evaders, so even the retired doctor must be struck down and the investigation of a payment statement of the pension of a doctor immediately shows the discrepancy existing between the amount paid by ENPAM under the form of a pension which the doctor is owed in view of the deposits made monthly throughout his working life and the amount that he can really collect at the end of the month. It is clear that, even in considering the stinginess of the Revenue service, we have to find some other way - political, judicial, or labour - to be able to confront the Italian government with its responsibilities towards someone who throughout his entire career worked for accessible fees in order to meet halfway the concepts of solidarity that the Government unloads onto doctors, to find himself mocked by the Revenue service which reserves a privileged treatment to those who, having the possibility, have handed their capital over to an Insurance Company. (traduzione Interpres sas-Giussano)
|
|
|