Technical certifications

Not every eligible project requires a certification, and the first task is to establish whether one is due and which. The check is made against the rules of the deduction claimed.

As a general rule the renovation deduction in its ordinary form carries no obligation of technical certification for tax purposes, without prejudice to the formalities proper to the building application. The formalities of the building application remain due in any event.

The ecobonus carries technical attestation obligations depending on the type of work, with documentation that may include the certification, product data sheets, supplier declarations and the energy performance certificate. The exact list varies with the type and should be checked against the guidance notes.

The seismic deduction carries a structured certification obligation, which survives the removal of the rates tied to risk class improvement. The obligation covers the risk class and the reasonableness of the expenditure.

The check should be made against the deduction claimed rather than the size of the project. A modest project may require a certification and a large one may not.

Where a certification is required, its content sits on two distinct planes worth keeping separate. The two planes have different subjects and different references.

The first is technical: it attests that the works meet the requirements the relief imposes, whether performance based, dimensional or classificatory. The requirements are set by the technical decrees connected with the regime.

The second is economic: it attests that the expenditure incurred is reasonable in relation to the eligible works. Reasonableness is assessed against documented price references.

The distinction matters because the two aspects are defended with different material on audit. The first is supported by calculations, data sheets and conformity checks; the second by documented price references.

Deduction	Technical certification	Reasonableness attestation
Renovation deduction, ordinary form	Not required for tax purposes	Not required
Energy efficiency deduction	Required according to the type of work	Required in the cases provided
Seismic deduction	Required, risk class before and after	Required
Furniture allowance	Not required	Not required

For the seismic deduction the rules identify precisely both the parties and the subject matter. Each of the three roles attests within its own competence.

The effectiveness of the works in reducing seismic risk is certified by the professionals responsible for the structural design, for supervising the structural works and for the structural inspection, within their respective competences and under the 2017 ministerial decree governing the matter. The allocation of competences cannot be freely varied.

The attestation concerns the building's risk class before and after the works, determined under the ministerial guidelines. The determination follows the method the guidelines define.

One point deserves restating because it produces a recurring misunderstanding: removing the graduated rates tied to the number of classes gained did not remove the obligation to certify the class. The obligation remains, and is independent of the fact that the result no longer affects the rate.

This is the aspect on which the professional's exposure is greatest and on which practice is least settled. It is the reasonableness attestation on the expenditure.

The reasonableness attestation is an economic judgment given by a professional with direct tax effects. It states that the expenditure incurred is consistent with the works carried out, and its soundness is open to verification on audit.

Defending such an attestation turns on one thing and one only: whether the items in the bill of quantities can be traced to documented price references. The references must be identified with their source and version.

A method point follows that belongs to preparing the bill rather than to the certification stage. A bill built from items referring to price books or to documented analyses supports the attestation; a lump sum bill, or one built from items that cannot be traced to references, leaves it without support.

This is why the quality of the bill of quantities is not, in this field, a matter of form. A bill without references is indefensible on audit.

One aspect should be stated explicitly because it distinguishes a tax certification from every other technical declaration. It concerns the periods within which a challenge can arrive.

A certification produces effects towards the revenue administration, and it is challenged within tax assessment periods rather than contractual ones. The assessment periods run longer than the appointment does.

Two consequences follow that change how a practice is run. They concern retention and professional indemnity cover.

The first concerns how long the exposure lasts. Because the deduction is spread over annual instalments and each instalment opens its own assessment period, exposure extends well beyond the closing of the site.

The second concerns retention. The technical material on which the certification rests must be kept for a period aligned with the assessment deadlines rather than with the duration of the appointment. That is a far longer horizon than the one for which a practice ordinarily keeps a site file.

Four categories of material support a certification on audit. None of the four can be reconstructed years later.

The calculations and conformity checks, in the version the attestation rests on. Successive versions should be retained alongside the final one.

The technical data sheets of the products and equipment installed, with supplier declarations where required. The sheets should be collected at installation rather than afterwards.

Photographic records of the state before and after the works, which on replaced systems is often the only element that cannot be reconstructed. The photographs must be taken before removal.

The price references used for the reasonableness attestation, identifying the source and its version. The version of the price schedule should be noted with the reference.

One final observation on the form of the appointment. Contractual clarity on what the professional verified and what was assumed on the basis of material supplied by others is the safeguard delimiting liability. A certification given on someone else's data without saying so is a certification the professional defends alone.

Assuming every eligible project requires a certification is the first, and produces formalities that are not due. Formalities that are not due cost time and add no protection.

Concluding that the fall of the graduated seismic rate removed the obligation to certify the class is the second. The obligation to certify the class is independent of the rate.

Giving a reasonableness attestation on a bill of quantities that cannot be traced to documented references is the third, and carries the greatest exposure. The bill should be built on the references before anything is attested.

Retaining the file for the duration of the appointment rather than for the assessment periods is the fourth. Retention should be planned over a multi year horizon.