Bonus at home only for extraordinary maintenance
The Home Bonus, as foreseen since 1998, is recognized for extraordinary maintenance interventions in individual properties, villas or apartments, while it is possible to have the deduction also in the case of ordinary maintenance when it comes to interventions carried out on the common parts of condominium buildings, even in the case of semi-detached houses.
But what distinguishes ordinary maintenance from extraordinary maintenance? The definitions date back to circular 57/1998 of the then Ministry of Finance.
In the text we read that the ordinary maintenance “includes the renewal or replacement of existing building finishing elements, the interventions necessary to maintain the efficiency of the technological systems with materials and finishes similar to existing ones”.
There Extraordinary maintenancehowever, is characterized by the presence of innovations compared to the previous situation which however do not involve alteration of the pre-existing planimetric and typological situation and with respect for the surface, volume and intended use. In the list of interventions that can be facilitated by way of example, as reiterated by the Revenue in all the standard documents, citing the circular 57/1998those of are included replacement of external frames and windows or shutters with shutters, with modification of material or type of frame.
The case submitted to the Court
The case addressed by the Supreme Court with the sentence no. 11791/2024 of 2 May last, concerns a dispute with the Revenue relating to the classification of some interventions as ordinary or extraordinary maintenance and the tax treatment applicable to the expenses for the interventions in question. The taxpayer, in this case a company, claimed to be entitled to the deduction of expenses in the same tax year having only carried out ordinary maintenance interventions.
The tax authorities instead carried out an assessment claiming that the interventions fell within the scope of the tax regime Extraordinary maintenance and so not deductible the same year but depreciable over five years, since the taxpayer, as mentioned, is a company.
The Court of Cassation found the Tax Office wrong since the taxpayer, as shown by the documents, had only made “laying of floors, excavation, installation of glass and doors and windows“, interventions which, according to the Court of Cassation, had been “wrongly classified as extraordinary maintenance works”, falling instead into ordinary maintenance. In essence, according to the Supreme Court, given that ordinary and extraordinary maintenance are distinguished by the presence of innovations, in this case by the documentation presented There appears to have been no innovation of materials and finishes regarding fixtures.
Floors, fixtures and doors
Even in the case of floors there is nothing new since already with the circular 57/1998 it was clarified that the simple “laying” of floors is not eligible for deduction as it lacks the characteristic of innovation.
Therefore the ruling of the Supreme Court does not contain any new element, nor does it disavow the possibility of having the 50% Bonus by private taxpayers for extraordinary maintenance interventions relating to fixtures, i.e. for interventions that involve innovations in materials and finishes with respect to the fixture being replaced. Provided, of course, that it is possible to document the presence of innovative characteristics in the intervention and that this appears on the expense invoice.
However, certification is completely missing in the case in question, as it was not cited in the documentation submitted to the Supreme Court for examination of the dispute.
