Cases of life are infinite, and for how a law can be detailed, there will always be gaps between non-regulated article and the other.
This becomes all the more valid if we analyze the sphere of tax legislation. In our country, the production of laws, decrees and regulations has always been so frequent and often contradictory as to leave room for an infinite number of questions on the practical application of this regulatory burden in the life of every day. And so, it happens to every taxpayer to run into a situation where he does not know exactly which standards apply, or how it should be interpreted in relation to his problem.
In Anglo-Saxon countries has been introduced for many years an institution, the ruling, which has been so successful that it has been exported at different times in other countries.
In practice, the taxpayer, rather than puzzling to find a solution (while remaining with the doubt of being wrong), comes forward with the tax authorities, present his case and asks how it should behave.
In Italy, the term "ruling" was translated as "questioning", and was introduced with great caution with the law 413/1991. It was decided to admit this fact only in relation to some very specific issues: in particular, by ruling that the taxpayer could not ask for certain expenses incurred by him were regarded as expenses of advertising or representation (the border is weak, but the tax treatment is quite different), or ask if its put in place one of the special operations of art. 37-bis of Presidential Decree 600/1973 (merger, transformation, liquidation, etc..) Was to be considered elusive.
That ancient choice of the legislature over the years proved to be so happy that in 2000 Vincenzo Visco saw the ruling as an extraordinary antidote to litigation and wanted to strengthen it enormously.
Less recourse to litigation, which opposes procedurally the taxpayer to the tax, in the nineties has become one of the fundamental objectives of the Italian fiscal policy.
The dispute has dragged on for many years, has a heavy cost for the citizens and the state, and bloats the already weary machinery of justice.
For this reason, at the end of the twentieth century were introduced a number of innovative institutions (the so-called "deflationary tools of litigation"), which would allow it to prevent or resolve disputes without resorting to the advance tax commissions. Among these institutions deflationary, we remember the voluntary disclosure, the tax settlement and the right ruling.
The latter, introduced cautiously in 1991 with reference to a few cases, it was generalized by Law 211/2000 (Statute of taxpayers' rights) to any possibility of doubt about the interpretation of the existing rules.
The general ruling has replaced the previously existing institution of '91 (never formally repealed, however), and set the foundations on which the years to come would be standardized, further action by the legislature.
The procedure is as follows: when a citizen is found to have doubts about which tax laws apply or how to interpret it, shall submit an application to the competent body. It is essential, as the law says, that it is a "case and staff" regarding the taxpayer is not allowed to submit general questions. When a ruling contains a general question, in fact, the agency could issue an opinion, however, that can guide the applicant, but it is devoid of any legal significance.
To constitute a ruling itself, therefore, the taxpayer must state in writing in a concise but comprehensive case a concrete and personal, specifying all relevant information to find a solution. If desired, but not required, he can also expose a personal interpretation and prompting.
The questions posed by the taxpayer may relate to any area of the field of taxation, regardless of topic.
He must expose and subscribe to his case in writing, on plain paper and with exemption from stamp duty, and send it by registered mail or hand deliver it to the competent institution, which will have one hundred and twenty days to respond.
In particular, if the speech concerns a local tax of course be necessary to refer the corresponding administrative entity, while in the case of a tribute erariale there are several alternatives: if the issue concerns the customs or problems related to land, the ruling will respectively sent to the Regional Directorate of the Customs or the Territory.
In other cases it will be necessary to refer to the Inland Revenue, usually at the Regional Office, with the exception of cases where the questioner is a public body or a private person who is in the previous year reported revenues of more than EUR 258 million or so, because in this case the seat is the central authority, in Rome.
It is important to remember that the presentation interpellation has in no case suspensory against any legal obligation. So, if a taxpayer does not know if he is required or not to pay a certain tax ruling and presents, this does not mean you can not to make that tribute waiting for the answer. It is therefore always better to pay all his debt and possibly ask for a refund at a later time whenever possible, rather than relying blindly of interpellation.
After sending the instance can happen a number of cases. It may happen that the Agency would give reason to the taxpayer, confirming the hypothesis that the same interpretation had suggested, or, on the contrary, that this hypothesis is rejected in whole or in part, or even in the absence of an interpretation of the taxpayer to intervene that of 'administration, and finally, it may happen that one hundred twenty days there has come no answer. Its consequences are different.
Translated via software
Italian version of ReteIngegneri.it