The end of the Superbonus and the open positions

Introduced in 2020 at a rate initially of 110 per cent, the measure supported energy upgrading and seismic risk reduction works, and was accompanied by the mechanisms of credit transfer and invoice discount, which allowed works to be carried out without immediate outlay. The absence of immediate outlay is what drove its uptake.

The combination of a rate above one hundred per cent and immediate monetisation produced a volume of works without precedent in the sector, and equally without precedent were the effects on public finances and on the prices of building operations. The rise in the prices of building operations was the second effect.

The path of reduction began by restricting the transfer and discount options, continued with the progressive lowering of the rate in later years, and ended without extension. Each step narrowed the scope further than the last.

There was no extension, and the closure is final. Only the remaining instalments of past expenditure survive.

The scope of that closure should be stated precisely to avoid a misunderstanding. Rights already accrued have not fallen away: what has fallen away is the possibility of accruing new ones.

Expenditure incurred in the years when the measure was in force keeps the regime that applied to it, and the remaining instalments continue to be claimed. The instalments remain subject to audit for the periods provided.

Deductions accrued under the Superbonus are spread over annual instalments under the arrangements applying to the expenditure of each year. The arrangements vary with the year the expenditure was incurred.

Those arrangements have been amended over time, with legislative measures extending the spreading period for particular years and introducing options to recalculate. The check should be made against the year the expenditure was incurred.

The consequence for a taxpayer is that claims in tax returns continue for years after the works were completed, and with them exposure to audit. The documentation must be retained for the whole period.

The consequence for a professional who worked in that period is that the files for those projects are not dead archives: they are documentation that may still be called for. Accessibility should be assured rather than assumed.

Aspect	Position today
New Superbonus projects	No longer possible, no extension
Remaining instalments of past expenditure	Still claimed in returns, subject to audit
Transferred credits not yet used	In circulation under the regime of their year
Suspended positions or those under review	Their own paths involving transferors, transferees and professionals
Litigation on certifications and reasonableness	Still running

A substantial share of the benefits accrued under the Superbonus was not claimed in tax returns but converted into transferred credits. Transferred credits follow a path of their own.

Those credits circulate under the rules of their own regime and are used in set off by transferees according to the instalments due to them. The instalments due to transferees are set by the rules.

Some positions have been suspended or placed under review, with their own paths involving transferors, transferees and, where relevant, the professionals who gave the certifications. The professional's involvement does not depend on the client's initiative.

The subject is examined in the page devoted to the alternatives to direct deduction. Its current standing is worth checking at the date of the works.

The litigation the measure generated concerns three recurring areas, and is still running. The case law is not yet settled on every aspect.

Technical certifications, particularly the soundness of attestations of class and of performance. The supporting material should be kept with the attestation.

The reasonableness of expenditure, which is the aspect on which a rate above one hundred per cent exerted the greatest pressure, because it removed any incentive for the client to contain costs. The price references used are the only defence available.

The liability of the parties involved, defining the respective boundaries between client, contractor, certifying professional and credit transferee. The boundaries are drawn on the contracts and the documentation.

For a practice that worked in that period, three points follow from the above. They concern accessibility, retention and mapping the positions.

Project files should be kept accessible rather than archived on the site's horizon, because the assessment periods for the remaining instalments are still open. Accessibility should be assured until the periods expire.

The material supporting the certifications given should be kept together with the file rather than separately: in a challenge, being able to retrieve it immediately is what distinguishes a sustainable defence from a reconstruction. A scattered collection is equivalent to no collection.

Positions relating to transferred credits should be mapped, because a professional's involvement in those reviews does not depend on any initiative of the client. The mapping should be done before any request arrives.

Beyond the particular episode, the measure made three things evident that remain valid for the ordinary regime. The three concern documentation, deadlines and liability.

A very high rate shifts risk onto the reasonableness attestation, because it removes the client's interest in containing costs. Under the current regime, with rates below one hundred per cent, that interest exists again, and this structurally reduces the professional's risk.

Contemporaneous documentation is worth more than reconstructed documentation, and that difference only shows years later. The cost of producing it at the right moment is negligible.

The professional's exposure follows tax deadlines rather than contractual ones, and that asymmetry should be built into how a practice is organised. Retention should be planned on the longer horizon.