Audits and the end of the Superbonus

The three preceding branches describe how the right to a deduction is built. This one describes how it is kept.

The difference is not theoretical. Most disallowances concern not the eligibility of the works but the documentation that should have supported them, and documentation is built during the works or not at all.

The revenue administration checks entitlement to deductions within the assessment periods the tax rules provide, running from the return in which the instalment was claimed. The records must therefore be retained for the whole period.

Because the relief is spread over annual instalments, each instalment claimed opens its own period. It follows that exposure to audit on an incentivised project extends well beyond completion of the works, and that documents must be retained for longer than a practice ordinarily keeps a site file.

The elements audits focus on recur: whether the payment method complied, whether the building consents exist and are consistent, whether the expenditure relates to the eligible works, whether the electronic formalities were timely and, where required, whether the technical certification is complete. The same elements recur in almost every assessment.

A negative outcome leads to recovery of the relief claimed with the consequences the rules attach. The recovery covers the whole instalment wrongly claimed.

A brief historical note helps in understanding the legacy the measure left. The Superbonus produced an unprecedented volume of credits.

Introduced in 2020 at a rate initially of 110 per cent and accompanied by the mechanisms of credit transfer and invoice discount, the Superbonus produced an unprecedented volume of works, a rate progressively reduced in later years and significant litigation. It was not extended and its closure is final.

What remains alive is nevertheless substantial. Three sets of positions remain open.

The remaining annual instalments relating to expenditure incurred in past years continue to be claimed in tax returns under the applicable spreading arrangements, and remain subject to audit. Positions therefore stay open for years after the site closes.

Credits transferred and not yet used circulate under the rules of their own regime, and suspended positions or those under review follow their own paths. Suspended positions should be checked on the dedicated platform.

Litigation over certifications, the reasonableness of expenditure and the liability of the parties involved is still running. The case law is not yet settled on every aspect.

For a professional who worked in that period, the consequence is that the archive of those projects is not a dead archive. It is documentation that may still be called for.

Subject of the audit	What the administration checks
Payment method	Compliance of the instrument and completeness of the transfer data
Building consents	Existence, consistency with the works and planning regularity
Connection of the expenditure	Direct link between the items and the eligible works
Electronic formalities	Timeliness of transmission within the periods provided
Technical certification	Completeness and soundness of the elements attested

The two mechanisms allowing a deduction to be turned into immediate liquidity were the subject of a general block, and their availability today is residual. What remains should be checked case by case.

The principle is therefore reversed compared with the Superbonus years: the rule is direct use of the deduction in the tax return, and the alternative options are the exception, confined to the situations the rules preserve. Direct use in the tax return is therefore the assumption to make.

The practical consequence for the financial plan of a project is substantial. A client without sufficient tax capacity no longer has, save in exceptional cases, a means of monetising the benefit, and this brings the check on tax capacity back to the centre of the feasibility assessment.

The exact scope of the situations still permitted is covered in the dedicated page and is among the elements most subject to change. It should be checked at the date of the works and not against earlier sources.

One aspect should be stated explicitly because the Superbonus period showed its consequences. It concerns the liability of the certifying professional.

Technical certifications given for the purposes of a tax relief expose whoever signs them to a liability that does not end with the relationship with the client. An untrue attestation produces effects towards the revenue administration, and the period in which it can be challenged is the tax assessment period rather than the contractual one.

Three safeguards follow.

Retaining the technical material on which the certification rests, for a period aligned with the assessment deadlines rather than with the duration of the appointment. The appointment ends before the assessment periods do.

Documenting the checks actually carried out, which is what distinguishes a well founded attestation from one given on material supplied by others. An attestation given on unverified material is the most exposed position.

Contractual clarity on the scope of the appointment, delimiting what the professional certified and what was not verified. The boundary must be written before rather than after an assessment.

The list is short and stable.

The project file should be completed at the closing of the site and retained for the assessment periods. An incomplete file is discovered only during an audit.

Payment methods should be checked before the first payment, because an error on this point cannot be cured afterwards. The check costs minutes and prevents the loss of the benefit.

Formalities with deadlines should be placed on the site closing checklist rather than treated as subsequent matters. The periods run from the end of the works.

Positions relating to incentivised projects from past years should be kept accessible, even where the site closed years ago. Accessibility should be assured until the assessment periods expire.