by Pietro Mastellone
Pietro Mastellone is a PhD candidate at the University of Bergamo in Italy, a tax lawyer, and a lecturer in
international tax law at the University of Florence in Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
I
n the European Union, the process of economic
internationalization and globalization of the markets has opened a serious debate about the comparability of the balance sheets of economic players. Being
able to compare balance sheets is necessary in order to
realize a uniformity of the criteria used and to render
balance sheets more reliable for investors, who frequently abandon the markets and refuse to invest because of this lack of transparency.
The growth in cross-border business dealings led to
a more urgent need for transparency of accounting information to provide comparable balance sheets and to
avoid discrimination between market players. In 1995
the European Commission first indicated that the EU
must use international accounting standards or international financial reporting standards to realize the full
harmonization of company law and to overcome the
obstacles represented by the different accounting traditions of the member states.1
1
See COM 95(508). With this document, the European Commission identified several solutions to render the accounting systems of the member states comparable with that of the U.S.:
the Union needs to move promptly to offer the users and
preparers of accounts a clear prospect that companies
seeking listings on the U.S. and other world markets will
be able to remain within the EU accounting framework
and that U.S. GAAP, over which they and their governments can exercise no influence, is not the only option. It
also needs to made clear that the Community is not abandoning the field of accounting harmonisation, but is rather
strengthening its commitment and contribution to the international standard-setting process, which offers the most
efficient and rapid solution for the problems of companies
operating on a world-wide scale.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
Europe has an ‘‘accounting disharmony’’2 — each
member state applies its national accounting standards
and IAS principles only to certain taxpayers. The relationship between income determined by the profit and
loss account and the income that has fiscal relevance
can be classified under one of these three models:
• Monorail model (or single track or full application of
the dependency principle). According to this scheme,
the income determined by civil rules from the
profit and loss account also has relevance for tax
purposes. The model involves the full faith of legislators in the choices of the auditors, but this assumption is contradicted by the day-by-day practice that shows frequent amendments of the
outcome in order to adjust the tax base (which is
subject to a total application of the dependency
principle). Jurisdictions adopting this system usually equip their tax authorities with broader
powers of discretion on the choices made in the
financial accounts, which increases the uncertainty
of taxpayers.
• Double track. This system is characterized by a rigorous separation between civil and tax rules.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to realize in a ‘‘pure’’
version, because this will imply a comprehensive
and independent set of rules governing all the
complex aspects of business income.3
• Partial application of the dependency principle. This
third scheme uses the outcome of the profit and
2
G. Fiori, Il principio della ‘‘rappresentazione veritiera e corretta’’
nella redazione del bilancio di esercizio, Milan, 1999, p. 28.
3
The term ‘‘double track’’ is often wrongly referred to as a
system based on the dependency principle.
JANUARY 17, 2011 • 241
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
Corporate Tax and International Accounting
Standards: Recent Developments in Italy
SPECIAL REPORTS
In this fragmented picture of the methods of determining the tax base, the EU is playing a fundamental
role in enhancing accounting harmonization to avoid
discrimination between similar companies using different accounting systems.
This problem is not simple to solve, because accounting principles can heavily influence commercial
and tax law.
Regarding commercial law, we should look at IAS
or IFRS — introduced in the EU by Reg. (EC) No.
1606/20025 — and the system provided by directive
Nos. 78/660/EEC6 (the accounting criteria to adopt
individual financial statements) and 83/349/EEC7
(consolidated accounts of European companies). The
EU believed that the contemporary application of these
different accounting systems was a threat to the realization of the single market. With the gradual strengthening of the integration process among the member states
— which reached its watershed in 2002 with the entry
into force of the common currency — the EU enacted
a proper legal discipline that significantly accelerated
the process of accounting harmonization,8 which identified IAS principles as the best way to build a homogeneous platform of accounting criteria. The new accounting modernization policy undertaken by the EU
highlights the importance that:
a level playing field exists between Community
companies which apply IAS and those which do
not. For the purposes both of the adoption of
IAS and the application of Directives 78/660/
EEC and 83/349/EEC, it is desirable that those
Directives reflect developments in international
accounting. In this respect, the Communication
of the Commission entitled ‘‘Accounting Harmonisation: A New Strategy vis-à-vis International Harmonisation’’ called for the European
Union to work to maintain consistency between
Community Accounting Directives and developments in international accounting standard set-
4
Similarly, regimes based on the dependency principle are
wrongly considered ‘‘single track’’ systems.
5
OJ L 243, Sept. 11, 2002, pp. 1-4.
6
OJ L 222, Aug. 14, 1978, pp. 11-31.
7
OJ L 193, July 18, 1983, pp. 1-17.
8
See P. Petrolati, L’armonizzazione contabile nell’Unione Europea.
Scenari e impatti, Bologna, 2002; P. Walton, ‘‘European harmonization,’’ in: F.D.S. Choi (ed.), International Finance and Accounting
Handbook, New Jersey, 2003, p. 17.1; S. Zambon (ed.), Informazione societaria e nuovi processi di armonizzazione internazionale. Alle
soglie del cambiamento, Bologna, 2002.
242 • JANUARY 17, 2011
ting, in particular within the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC).9
However, the influence of an accounting regime on
corporate taxation is more delicate because the majority of the member states uses the principle of dependency, producing a fiscal ‘‘pollution’’ in the financial
accounts and the phenomenon of manipulation for tax
purposes (so-called reverse dependency).10
The goal of this article is to describe the IAS and
IFRS discipline in Italy, which shows the effect of accounting and fiscal convergence wanted by EU law as
a necessity to reduce the compliance costs on market
players and to build a solid path for the creation of the
common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB).11
In its 2003 consultation document,12 the European
Commission identified IAS principles as the possible
starting point toward the CCCTB and highlighted the
heavy influence that they would have on the profit and
loss account, because most of the member states provide a close connection between its outcome and the
tax base.13
The Dependency Principle
The traditional approach of the Italian legislature
has always been modeled on a partial application of
the dependency principle, expressing a close link between the accounting criteria and the tax base of the
taxpayers required to file an annual balance sheet and
financial reports. According to this method, the tax
base was determined by making the relevant adjustments (variazioni fiscali) provided by tax law to the civil
profit and loss account. In this phase, there was the
conviction of a ‘‘tendential uniqueness’’ of the civil
9
Article 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/51/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of June 18, 2003.
10
Reverse dependency is when the auditor ‘‘pollutes’’ the
profit and loss account by recording a certain negative component in order to render it deductible for tax purposes.
11
See K. Van Hulle, ‘‘International Convergence of Accounting Standards: A Comment on Jeffrey,’’ Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L.,
Vol. 12, 2002, p. 357.
12
‘‘The Application of International Accounting Standards
(IAS) in 2005 and the Implications for the Introduction of a
Consolidated Tax Base for Companies’ EU-wide Activities.’’
13
According to B.J.M. Terra and P.J. Wattel:
the Commission hopes that the IAS/IFRS standard can be
a ‘‘starting point’’ for a CCCTB, because otherwise the
wheel would again have to be invented in unanimity with
27 Member States and in consultation with EU industry.
It would seem, however, that IAS/IFRS rules are less suitable than hoped for, as their aim is to adequately inform
stakeholders in the companies as to the real value of the
group, whereas tax accounting rules should determine the
realized profits and the ability to pay tax on them.
B.J.M. Terra and P.J. Wattel, Eur’n Tax L., 5th ed., Alphen
aan den Rijn, 2008, p. 211.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
loss account determined by civil rules as a starting
point for the taxable income, which is obtained by
means of all the increases or decreases allowed by
the tax law.4
SPECIAL REPORTS
Outcome of the profit and loss account
+/– tax adjustments
Tax base
% applicable tax rates
Tax due
This strict relationship between the profit and loss
account and the tax base created the problem of fiscal
‘‘pollution’’ of the balance sheet, considered an ‘‘inevitable evil within the single track system, which partly
compresses the principles of clarity and precision in
the fulfillment of the balance sheet.’’15 This problem
has been merely limited by the legislature with the introduction of a so-called fiscal appendix to the profit
and loss account. In particular, article 7 of Legislative
Decree No. 127/1991 modified the contents of the
profit and loss account and introduced two new clauses
to article 2425 of the Civil Code:
fied in the profit and loss account did not have any
relevance for tax purposes.17
Nevertheless, the main problem of such an approach was the excessive rigidity of the link, which led
to a balance result not compatible with several international accounting principles — for example, capital
gains and capital losses are directly imputed in the financial statement (fair value principle)18 — and a substantial change in the assessment methods of tax authorities, which were entitled to ground all their
investigations on the balance sheets. Also, the evaluation at the fair market value in that system caused
many disputes between the tax authority and the taxpayer regarding the estimate value,19 producing a reduction of the tax revenue.
All these issues made that system an obstacle to a
certain determination of taxes and an incentive for the
taxpayer to substantially intervene on the balance sheet
in order to avoid or evade taxes. Some authors highlighted the necessity of a double track system capable
of allowing the outcome of the profit and loss account
and the tax base to be governed by different rules,
without the interference of the fiscal factor on the business income. Some authors believed that autonomy
between tax rules and accounting rules was necessary
because:
the goals of civil law and those of tax law are
frequently quite different. The first aims at measuring the outcome of the business period in the
most adherent manner to the business reality and
in the view of continuity of the business activity
it rewards, tendentially, a prudential approach.
On the other hand, the second aims at using
taxation as a tool of economic policy, rewarding
certain behaviours (normally the investments) and
24) value adjustments made exclusively in application of tax provisions; and
25) reserves made exclusively in application of
tax provisions.
According to this system, the profit and loss account
was the starting point on which tax adjustments determined the tax base16 and all the deductions not speci-
14
See M. Andriola, ‘‘Valori fiscalmente riconosciuti e valori di
bilancio dopo l’introduzione del ‘doppio binario,’’’ Dialoghi di
Diritto Tributario, No. 9/2004, p. 1139.
15
See C. Pino, ‘‘Gestione o eliminazione delle interferenze
fiscali sul bilancio?’’ Corriere Tributario, No. 44/2002, p. 3986.
16
Nevertheless, some believed that the fiscal ‘‘pollution’’ did
not exist, since the Italian legislature considered the profit and
loss account as a unique document, governed by either civil and
tax provisions (so-called theory of uniqueness). See G. Falsitta,
‘‘Convergenze e divergenze tra diritto tributario e diritto commerciale nella disciplina del bilancio d’esercizio,’’ Giurisprudenza
Commerciale, I, 1980, p. 213.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
17
Article 75, paragraph 4 of Presidential Decree No. 917 of
December 22, 1986 (Income Tax Consolidated Act), states that:
costs and other negative components shall not be deducted
if and in the measure they do not result from the profit
and loss account. Nevertheless, are deductible the negative
components that — although not recorded in the profit
and loss account — are disciplined by an express provision of law and those recorded in the profit and loss account of a past tax year, if such deduction has been postponed according to the previous rules of this title that
provide or allow such postponement. The expenses and
the burdens specifically referred to the profits and other
proceeds, which concur to form the income although not
recorded in the profit and loss account, shall be deducted
if and in the measure they result from certain and precise
elements, except from what provided for the account
books by subsequent paragraph 6.
18
See D. Muratori, ‘‘Profili tributari dei componenti imputati
direttamente a patrimonio netto secondo gli IAS/IFRS,’’ Rassegna Tributaria, no. 5/2008, III, p. 1353.
19
This term indicates the price at which an activity may be
exchanged or a loss expired in an operation between independent
agreed parties.
JANUARY 17, 2011 • 243
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
and tax values condensed in the profit and loss account.14 The procedure for the calculation of the tax
due under the dependency principle system is structured as shown in the figure.
SPECIAL REPORTS
A (Partial) Double Track Approach
The real change toward a different approach took
place between 2003 and 2005, when three important
legislative statutes were passed.
Legislative Decree No. 6/2003 reformed Italian
company law and abolished the possibility of imputing
the profit and loss account all adjustments of value and
reserves in application of tax rules.21 This process of
fiscal ‘‘depollution’’ of financial accounts did not eliminate the right to deduct negative components, which
are relevant only on the tax return.22
The corporate tax reform (Legislative Decree No.
344/2003) moved toward the double track system, cutting the link between the accounting principles and the
tax rules and abolishing fiscal intrusions within companies’ accounts.23 The new Italian corporate tax (Imposta sui Redditi delle Società, or IRES) introduced
several provisions showing the independence between
financial accounts and income reported on the tax return. For example, article 109(4)(b) of the Income Tax
Consolidated Act (ITCA) provided that tax deductions
may have relevance for tax purposes and be indicated
on the tax return, even if they were not accounted on
the balance sheet.
Until 2003, the legislature tried to minimize the tax
base for companies and maximize the results on the
balance sheet, but because these goals soon appeared
20
T. Di Tanno, ‘‘Brevi note a favore del doppio binario nella
determinazione del reddito d’impresa,’’ Rivista di Diritto Tributario,
2000, I, p. 411. See also F. Gallo, ‘‘Brevi note sulla necessità di
eliminare le interferenze della normativa fiscale nella redazione
del bilancio d’esercizio,’’ Rivista di Diritto Tributario, 2000, I, p. 3.
21
The company law reform repealed article 2426, paragraph
2, Civil Code, which provided that ‘‘it is allowed to make value
adjustments and reserves exclusively in application of tax rules.’’
[Author’s translation.] See A. Corradi and M. Leotta, ‘‘Ires —
Eliminazione dal bilancio delle interferenze fiscali,’’ Rassegna
Tributaria, no. 3/2004, p. 1021.
22
See N. D’Amati, ‘‘Inquinamento e disinquinamento: le
origini della questione e i criteri stabiliti dal Tuir 2003,’’ Rassegna
Tributaria, no. 6/2005, p. 1795.
23
Regarding the impact of the corporate tax reform on the
accounting principles, see P. Formica, Riforma del diritto societario:
eliminazione delle interferenze fiscali dal bilancio d’esercizio, contenuti e
prospettive, Università LUISS, July 2003; G. Gaffuri, ‘‘I principi
contabili internazionali e l’ordinamento fiscale,’’ Rassegna Tributaria, 2004, p. 871; F. Gallo, ‘‘Riforma del diritto societario e
imposta sul reddito,’’ Giurisprudenza Commerciale, 2004, I, p. 273;
M. Miccinesi, ‘‘L’impatto IAS nell’ordinamento tributario italiano alla luce della riforma del Tuir: fiscalità corrente e differita,’’ Giurisprudenza delle Imposte, 2004, p. 1435; G. Zizzo, ‘‘I
principi contabili internazionali nei rapporti tra determinazione
del risultato di esercizio e determinazione del reddito imponibile,’’ Rivista di Diritto Tributario, 2005, I, p. 1165.
244 • JANUARY 17, 2011
unachievable, the introduction of the double track system was an attempt to realize their reconciliation.24
The risk of introducing a double track system was
that the tax base was determined exclusively according
to the rules laid down by the legislature, without taking
into account all the economic criteria used to measure
the profits of companies.
Nevertheless, the Italian legislature did not introduce
a ‘‘pure’’ double track regime, but a ‘‘partial’’ one:25 It
adopted a compromise solution between the single
track and the ‘‘pure’’ double track system by substantially maintaining the fundamental principle of dependency of the tax base from the accounting outcome.26
Before the reform, the tax base of business income was
determined by:
adapting the profit or loss resulting from the account, referred to the last tax year, with the relevant positive or negative adjustments established
by the criteria contained in the following provisions of this Consolidated Act.27
That provision has been transposed with the same
contents in article 83 of the ITCA by Legislative Decree No. 344/2003. Although the corporate tax reform
introduced the duty to fulfill a specific part of the tax
return (quadro EC) with the deductions relevant only for
tax purposes and not for civil ones, there is still not a
full separation between fiscal and civil data.
24
See A. Bampo, ‘‘Nuovi principi contabili e passaggio a riserva del fondo ammortamenti anticipati — Effetti contabili e
brevi cenni sui risvolti tributari,’’ Rassegna Tributaria, no. 1/2005,
p. 175; J. Bloch and L. Sorgato, ‘‘Eliminazione delle interferenze
fiscali dal bilancio d’esercizio,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 38/2001,
p. 2834; F. Dezzani and P. Pisoni, ‘‘Documento n. 1 dell’O.I.C.
(Organismo Italiano di Contabilità): disinquinamento del bilancio. La soluzione raccomandata dall’OIC non è condivisibile,’’ Il
Fisco, no. 25 of June 21, 2004, p. 1-3775; T. Di Tanno and M.
Rognoni, ‘‘Rappresentazione in bilancio degli effetti
dell’eliminazione delle interferenze fiscali,’’ Bollettino Tributario,
no. 21/2004, p. 1532; A.M. Fellegara, Interferenza fiscale e misurazione dei valori aziendali. Riflessioni e spunti critici alla luce dei cambiamenti in atto, Milan, 2001; G. Ferranti, ‘‘Il disinquinamento dei
bilancio delle società di capitali,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 18/2004,
p. 1379; P. Pisoni, F. Bava, and D. Busso, ‘‘Disinquinamento fiscale: nuovo strumento di politiche di bilancio,’’ Impresa Commerciale Industriale, no. 5/2004, p. 758; G. Vasapolli and A. Vasapolli, ‘‘Il disinquinamento del bilancio nei principi contabili
nazionali,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 12/2005, p. 907.
25
G. Falsitta, ‘‘Il problema dei rapporti tra bilancio civile e
bilancio fiscale nel progetto di riforma della imposta sulle società
(Ires),’’ Rivista di Diritto Tributario, no. 11/2003, I, p. 930.
26
In that phase, the double track system was chosen in a limited version, which ‘‘combines itself with the dependency principle and it is used to substitute, for tax purposes, the civil values
with the fiscal ones by means of adding the differences in adjustments in decrease or in increase of the taxable income.’’ M.
Damiani, ‘‘Profili generali sulle problematiche applicative della
fiscalità dei bilanci IAS/IFRS,’’ Dialoghi Tributari, no. 1/2008,
footnote 5, p. 55.
27
Article 52, ‘‘old’’ ITCA.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
rendering convenient or not some others (normally the patrimonial strengthening or the weakening).20
SPECIAL REPORTS
First Application of International Principles
28
See I. Vacca, ‘‘Gli IAS/IFRS e il principio della prevalenza
della sostanza sulla forma: effetti sul bilancio e sul principio di
derivazione nella determinazione del reddito d’impresa,’’ Rivista
di Diritto Tributario, no. 10/2006, p. 757.
29
See M.T. Bianchi, M. Di Siena, and R. Lupi, ‘‘Il coordinamento fra IAS e disciplina del reddito d’impresa: il principio di
derivazione è giunto al capolinea?’’ Dialoghi di Diritto Tributario,
no. 1/2005, p. 135; L. Miele, ‘‘I principi contabili internazionali
The ‘Enhanced’ Dependency Principle
The lack of coordination between the tax and accounting rules and the growing uncertainty of taxpayers led the legislature to modify the 2005 rules
abandoning the (partial) double track and trying to
safeguard the principle of tax neutrality:31
• the dependency principle has been strengthened as
a general rule for determining the corporate tax
base and has provided a particular regime for IAS
‘‘first time adoption’’; and
• the reform tried to guarantee an adequate introduction of IAS principles in the Italian tax system
and ensure an equal treatment of undertakings
regardless of the accounting principles adopted.32
Finance Act 200833 realized a substantial U-turn
that enhanced the dependency approach34 of companies’ tax liability to their financial accounts.35 The previous regime showed its operative obstacles in the complexity of the ITCA provisions, and it raised many
problems because not all situations regulated by IAS
principles found a corresponding tax discipline. The
return to a system explicitly based on the dependency
principle created a different treatment between IAS
adopters and non-IAS adopters.
fanno li loro ingresso nell’ordinamento italiano,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 1/2005, p. 28; I. Vacca, supra note 28; G. Zizzo, supra
note 23.
30
Some argue that ‘‘although this Court acknowledges [IAS
principles] as internationally accepted, nevertheless they are not
tax neither civil provisions that this Court is obliged to apply.’’
Tax Court of First Instance of Savona, Section II, Decision No.
82 of April 26, 2006.
31
According to the Report to Legislative Decree No. 38/2005:
the circumstance that certain IRES taxpayers shall apply
(obligatorily or not) the international accounting principles, led to keep unchanged the mechanisms of determination of the tax base — grounded on the principle of
dependency from the balance sheet account — and to introduce in the discipline only the amendments necessary
for their application, safeguarding as much as possible the
neutrality of the operation. [Author’s translation.]
32
See Italian Banking Association (ABI), Circular No. 3 (Tax
Series) of February 21, 2006, p. 8.
33
Law No. 244 of December 24, 2007.
34
A. Magliocco and A. Sanelli, ‘‘Italy — Developments in
Tax Accounting,’’ Eur’n Tax’n, no. 8-9/2009, p. 444.
35
For the main changes to the accounting discipline introduced by Finance Act 2008, see M. Damiani, D. Stevanato, and
R. Lupi, ‘‘Principi contabili internazionali e reddito d’impresa: le
novità della Finanziaria 2008,’’ Dialoghi Tributari, no. 1/2008, p.
53; A. Vicini Ronchetti, ‘‘Legge Finanziaria 2008 e principi IAS:
le modifiche all’art. 83 del Tuir, una possibile soluzione ai dubbi
interpretativi,’’ Rassegna Tributaria, no. 3/2008, p. 680.
(Footnote continued in next column.)
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
JANUARY 17, 2011 • 245
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
After these important changes in company law and
corporate tax law, the first application in Italy of IAS
and IFRS began with Legislative Decree No. 38 of
February 28, 2005, which applied Regulation (EC) No.
1606/2002 and introduced several important amendments to the IRES criteria to limit the risk of disparity
of the tax burden of IAS adopters and non-IAS adopters.
The new discipline confirmed a system based on an
attenuated dependency principle of the corporate tax
base from the profit and loss account while trying to
safeguard tax neutrality for those that continued to
adopt national accounting standards.28
At that time, the legislature tried to realize the neutrality of the tax burden between IAS adopters and
non-IAS adopters by introducing amendments to the
ITCA and a provisional discipline for a progressive
introduction of IAS and IFRS. Beginning in 2006, all
‘‘large taxpayers’’ — quoted companies, banks, and
financial institutions — had to adopt IAS principles in
their financial accounts. By introducing the obligatory
adoption of IAS principles, the legislature tried to
achieve the following:
• more protection for investors, who became able to
transparently acknowledge all the necessary information from the balance sheets;
• a better availability of the accounting information
to third parties interested in making economic
decisions;
• enforcement of the substance-over-form principle
so that the balance sheets reflect economic reality;
and
• a level playing field in the international market.
With the entry of IAS principles in the Italian accounting legislation, several innovations were introduced and relationships with the tax law deeply
changed. The introduction of IAS involved two important new rules. IAS adopters now must indicate in
their financial statement any potential profits not yet
realized, represented at their FMV. Also, all economic
components will be measured not by their legal definition, but according to the substance-over-form principle.
This introduction of IAS principles in the Italian
accounting and tax system has been described by
scholars as a minimalist legislative intervention,29 be-
cause it did not provide an extensive and complete
regulation of all the casuistry. This was confirmed by
the decisions of some tax courts, which ruled that IAS
principles were not compulsory.30
SPECIAL REPORTS
The Italian legislature did
not introduce a ‘pure’
double track regime, but a
‘partial’ one.
At the same time, the reform allowed the rise of the
principle of derivation and implicitly disregarded the
single track and the double track options.
The single track system was considered capable of
bringing an excessive volatility of the tax base because
36
The majority of the Italian doctrine traditionally agrees on
a system that derives the tax base from the accounting outcome,
which is suitable to represent the effective ability of the taxpayers
to pay. See I. Caraccioli, M.A. Galeotti Flori, and F. Tanini, Il
reddito d’impresa nei tributi diretti, Padua, 1990, p. 9; G. Falsitta,
Lezioni sulla riforma tributaria, Padua, 1972, p. 311; G. Falsitta, Il
bilancio di esercizio delle imprese, Milan, 1985, p. 5; A. Fantozzi and
M. Alderighi, ‘‘Il bilancio e la normative tributaria,’’ Rassegna
Tributaria, 1984, I, p. 117; M. Miccinesi, ‘‘I tributi diretti erariali,’’ in: P. Russo (ed.), Manuale di diritto tributario, Milan, 1994,
p. 534; E. Nuzzo, ‘‘Modalità di documentazione delle divergenze
esistenti tra utile di bilancio e reddito tassabile,’’ Rivista di Diritto
Finanziario e Scienza delle Finanze, no. 4/1982, I, p. 608; L. Perrone, ‘‘Evoluzione e prospettive dell’accertamento tributario,’’
Rivista di Diritto Finanziario e Scienza delle Finanze, no. 1/1982, I, p.
105; L. Potito, ‘‘I rapporti tra bilancio civile e dichiarazione nella
normative del testo unico delle imposte sui redditi,’’ Rivista di
Diritto Finanziario e Scienza delle Finanze, 1989, I, p. 31; F. Tesauro,
‘‘Esegesi delle regole generali sul calcolo del reddito d’impresa,’’
in: VV.AA., Commentario al Testo Unico delle imposte sui redditi e altri
scritti, Rome-Milan, 1990, p. 218.
37
E. Ruggiero and G. Melis have argued that:
it is doubtful that two companies, having identical economic events, have the same ability to pay only because
the income is differently represented by virtue of rules
working on the civil level and that, by themselves, cannot
justify a different ‘‘measurement’’ on the tax level, verisimilarly also reading the ability to pay principle in terms
of mere ‘‘reasonableness’’ of the legislative intervention.
The phenomenon, in fact, shall be considered as unique,
since the application of different rules of measurement of
the tax base shall be considered pathologic and not physiologic.
E. Ruggiero and G. Melis, ‘‘Pluralità di sistemi contabili, diritto commerciale e diritto tributario: l’esperienza italiana,’’ Rassegna Tributaria, no. 6/2008, p. 1643.
246 • JANUARY 17, 2011
of the evaluation criteria laid down by IAS principles
and reducing the certainty of tax law.38 All the discretional evaluations of tax authorities would cause an
enormous number of tax controversies, which would
be resolved with the necessary intervention of the European Court of Justice.
On the other hand, a ‘‘pure’’ double track system
was not adopted, since a total separation of accounting
criteria and tax provisions would have exposed taxpayers to the legislature’s exclusive choices, losing the
connection with the economic criteria used to determine the increases of business income.
From the clash of these two systems, the principle
of dependency emerged strengthened and justified under the ability to pay principle provided by article 53 of
the Italian Constitution, which considers that the income determined in the accounts is suitable to faithfully depict the effective ability of a company to pay.
For this reason, the Constitutional Court confirmed its
conformity with article 53 of the Constitution.39 Therefore, a recent legislative amendment introduced IAS
principles in the determination of business income to
limit their impact on the principle of dependency.40
According to the regime:
the total income is determined by making to the
profit or loss resulting from the account, referred
to the business period of the last tax year, the
adjustments in increase or in decrease in application of the criteria laid down in the following
provisions of this section. In case of activities
benefiting of partial or total exemption regimes,
the tax losses shall assume relevance in the same
measure that the positive outcomes would be considered. For the subjects who strike their account
according to the international accounting standards provided by Regulation (EC) No. 1606/2002
of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 July 2002, shall be applicable — also derogating the provisions of the following articles of
the present section — the criteria of qualification,
time apportionment and classification in the accounts as provided by such accounting standards.
[Article 83 ITCA.]
As a natural consequence of the strengthening of
the dependency principle, the legislature abolished the
possibility of deducting costs not expressly indicated in
the account (deduzioni extracontabili), modifying article
109(4) of the ITCA, which now provides that:
38
See Commissione di studio sull’imposizione fiscale sulle società (‘‘Commissione Biasco’’), ‘‘Relazione finale,’’ Tributi, Supplemento no. 3/2008, p. 59.
39
See Constitutional Court, decisions No. 69/1965 and No.
225/2005.
40
See I. Vacca, ‘‘L’impatto degli IAS sul principio di derivazione dei redditi d’impresa dalle risultanze di esercizio,’’ Corriere
Tributario, no. 44/2007, p. 3559.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
The rationale behind this reform was the necessity
to find a ‘‘constitutionally oriented’’ coordination between accounting and tax rules36 in order to avoid different tax treatment between taxpayers showing the
identical ability to pay only because of their accounting
regime.37 Another problem arising from the misapplication of the principle of neutrality was the tax-driven
operations of taxpayers that decided to allocate assets
among IAS adopters and non-IAS adopters only based
on the most convenient fiscal burden.
SPECIAL REPORTS
a) the components recorded in the profit and
loss account of a past tax year, if the deduction has been postponed according to the previous rules of this section that provide or allow such postponement;
b) those costs that, although not recorded in
the profit and loss account, are deductible by
virtue of a provision of law. The costs and
burdens specifically related to profits and other
income, which although not recorded in the
profit and loss account concur to form the income, shall be deducted if and in the measure
they result from certain and precise elements.41
Ministerial Decree No. 48/2009
The IAS regime contained in Finance Act 2008 has
been put in practice by Ministerial Decree No. 48 of
April 1, 2009.
The decree confirms the centrality of the dependency principle in determining the corporate tax base
for IAS adopters. In other words, in Italy there are
now two alternative methods of striking the balance
sheet: the IAS system and the civil system, both based
on a strengthened dependency principle.
There are two interesting aspects provided in the
decree.
First, the decree neutralizes the principles of competence, certainty, and objective determinability provided
by article 109(1) and (2) of the ITCA, because:
IAS make themselves reference to criteria of certainty and determinability, by specifying their
content in various manners, because the applicative overlapping of that tax provision would have
produced uncertainty.42
Second, article 2(2) of the decree provides that IAS
adopters will apply ITCA rules relating to the:
• quantitative limits for the deduction of negative
components or their exclusion;
• distribution to the deduction of negative components over more tax periods;
41
This letter has been amended by article 1(33)(q)(1), Law
No. 244 of December 24, 2007.
42
Illustrative Relation to Ministerial Decree No. 48/2009.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
• partial or total exemption or exclusion from the
tax base of positive components, variously defined, or their distribution over more tax periods;
and
• relevance of a) certain positive components in the
period of their receipt or b) certain negative components in the period of their payment.
This provision confirms the applicability of the
ITCA provisions that derogate from accounting rules
for tax purposes (tax adjustments), reflecting the legislature’s desire to render more rigid income determination to protect the revenue stream.43 The Illustrative
Relation to Ministerial Decree No. 48/2009 remarks
that the decree decided to maintain valid for IAS
adopters those provisions that — for purely fiscal purposes — derogate to the balance sheet according to
national accounting principles and, therefore, continue
to derogate also to the balance sheet according to IAS
or IFRS.
Open Issues and Practical Matters
The new regime represents an important development in the Italian tax system that recognizes a common bundle of international principles for determining
companies’ tax liability. Some aspects still remain critical.
Effectiveness of the Principle of Neutrality
One of the most ambiguous aspects of the introduction of IAS or IFRS in Italy is the principle of tax
neutrality, which guarantees that companies are not
taxed more than others in the same conditions because
of their accounting regime.44 In order to guarantee the
effectiveness of the principle, article 3(1) of Ministerial
Decree No. 48 of April 1, 2009, expressly provides
that:
the recognition for tax purposes of the criteria of
qualification, time apportionment and classification in the accounts according to the correct application of IAS, does not determine, in any case,
43
See L. Salvini, ‘‘Gli IAS/IFRS e il principio fiscale della
derivazione,’’ IAS/IFRS — La modernizzazione del diritto contabile in
Italia, Quaderni di Giurisprudenza Commerciale, Milan, 2007, p. 197.
44
The problem is twofold, since a different treatment is prohibited based on:
a) the neutrality and the equality principle, here in a sense
that companies that produce the same income have to pay
the same amount of tax, not chargeable in function of
accounting method utilized; b) the ability to pay principle,
here in the sense that companies have to pay tax on income that they effectively produce and that is not hypothetical.
M. Grandinetti, ‘‘The methods to determine the tax base: the
interaction between accounting and taxation. The effects of the
introduction of the International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS) in Italy, France and United Kingdom,’’ in: C. Sacchetto
and M. Barassi (eds.), Introduction to Comparative Tax Law, Soveria
Mannelli, 2008, p. 40.
JANUARY 17, 2011 • 247
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
costs and other negative components shall not be
deducted if and in the measure they are not recorded in the profit and loss account of the relevant tax period. The components recorded directly in the financial statement by virtue of the
international accounting standards shall be considered recorded in the profit and loss account.
Nevertheless the following shall be deductible:
SPECIAL REPORTS
In Italy there are now two
alternative methods of
striking the balance sheet:
the IAS system and the
civil system.
In the new scenario depicted by Finance Act 2008
and Ministerial Decree No. 48/2009, the relationship
between accounts and the tax base has been redesigned
to strengthen the dependency principle, for both IAS
adopters and non-IAS adopters. But this operation necessarily affected the principle of tax neutrality, which is
safeguarded not substantially, but only procedurally.
Tax neutrality is now expressed in the structure of tax
base calculation and not in its amount, as Legislative
Decree No. 38/2005 originally provided.46 Moreover,
this neutrality spreads its effects only until the phase of
declaration, while in the assessment activity tax authorities — inevitably — treat IAS adopters and nonIAS adopters differently.47
The introduction of accounts determined with IAS
or IFRS adds a new measure of determination of the
economic capacity of companies, which are subject to
precise provisions, but also to principles that may be
interpreted by taxpayers, judges, or tax inspectors.
These areas of discretion, therefore, may create confusion and different fiscal treatments of identical economic situations.48
But there is more. The different accounting system
leads not only to an objective disparity of tax treatment
45
See L. Miele, ‘‘Criterio della prevalenza della sostanza sulla
forma e imponibile IRES per soggetti IAS,’’ Corriere Tributario,
no. 5/2009, p. 345.
46
See G. Zizzo, ‘‘L’Ires e i principi contabili internazionali:
dalla neutralità sostanziale alla neutralità procedurale,’’ Rassegna
Tributaria, no. 2/2008, p. 316. Some authors argue that the
choice made in Finance Act 2008 abandons the principle of neutrality in favor of the strengthened dependency principle (A. Betunio and G. Molinaro, ‘‘Evoluzione della disciplina fiscale dei
soggetti IAS,’’ Fiscalità Internazionale, no. 3/2009, p. 183).
47
Id. at 324.
48
See R. Lupi, ‘‘Profili tributari della valutazione degli elementi dell’attivo e del passivo,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 39/2008,
p. 3170.
248 • JANUARY 17, 2011
but also creates competitive distortions that may affect
the realization and functioning of the internal market
(article 26 of the EC Treaty). In a recent decision, the
Court of First Instance acknowledged that the aggregate turnover is different if calculated according to IAS
principles or to national accounting standards: In the
control of concentrations discipline, the aggregate turnover is fundamental for determining whether the duty
of notification will be made to the commission or to
the national antitrust authorities (if it is not over the
threshold indicating the Community dimension).49
One problem relates to the practical consequences
arising from the economic operations between IAS
adopters and non-IAS adopters. Apparently the new
discipline expressly provides the separate tax relevance
of the same operation, whose income will be determined according to IAS principles in the accounts of
IAS adopters and according to national accounting criteria by non-IAS adopters.50 The rationale behind this
choice will be identified in a simplification of market
players’ accounting duties, which are not obligated to
monitor all the operations made with non-IAS adopters.51 This simplification may lead to double economic
taxation of the same operation.
Some Problems
New article 83 of the ITCA identifies IAS or IFRS
as an explicit derogation from tax rules for the adopting companies whose business activity will be represented in their accounts not through its legal form, but
its economic effects — according to the criteria of
qualification,52 time apportionment,53 and classification.54
49
CFI (T-417/05), Endesa v. Commission [2006], ECR II-2533.
The discipline provides that:
in case of operations between subjects striking their balance sheet according to IAS standards and subjects that
do not use them, the relevance and the tax treatment of
such operations are determined, for both of them, on the
basis of the correct application of the accounting principles adopted by each subject.
Article 3(2), Ministerial Decree No. 48/2009.
51
See Illustrative Relation to Ministerial Decree No. 48/2009.
See also M. Damiani, ‘‘La fiscalità delle transazioni tra soggetti
IAS e non IAS,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 5/2009, p. 356. A different choice would have led to a responsibility of the IAS adopters
to verify case-by-case the accounting regime of their commercial
counterpart.
52
See G. Zizzo, ‘‘Criteri di qualificazione IAS/IFRS nella determinazione dell’imponibile IRES,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 39/
2008, p. 3137.
53
See G. Fransoni, ‘‘L’imputazione a periodo nel reddito
d’impresa dei soggetti IAS/IFRS,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 39/
2008, p. 3145.
54
See D. Stevanato, ‘‘Profili tributari delle classificazioni di
bilancio,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 39/2008, p. 3155.
50
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
for the same taxpayer, double deduction nor no
deduction of negative components, nor double
taxation nor no taxation of positive components.
Therefore, the tax base of IAS adopters is determined from the components of the profit and loss account matching the criteria of qualification, time apportionment, and classification, in line with the
substance-over-form principle.45
SPECIAL REPORTS
Determining the Italian Business Tax
Finance Act 2008 introduced some important
amendments regarding the Italian business tax (Imposta Regionale sulle Attività Produttive, or IRAP),
which involve the reduction of its tax rate from 4.25
percent to 3.9 percent and the introduction of a single
track system in lieu of the (partial) double track.56
The Italian legislature
made a transition from an
accounting system based
on ‘historical cost.’
by introducing a full application of the dependency
principle, which confirms the importance of the accounting outcome for this tax and generally for the
new perspective of the Italian tax system.58
The legislature transformed the IRAP in a real regional tax established and disciplined with the national
law, but totally managed by local tax administrations.59
The introduction of the single track for the IRAP
tax base is fully comprehensive, since it is now obligatory both for IAS adopters and non-IAS adopters. As
some authors aptly highlighted,60 a total dependency of
the tax base from the profit and loss account is a ‘‘courageous choice’’ representing a revolution of a system
that previously safeguarded the principle of tax neutrality. The Italian central tax authority (Agenzia delle Entrate) stated:
the process of ‘‘unhooking’’ of the regional tax
from the income tax has been enforced by the
legislator by means of rendering irrelevant in the
IRAP all the tax adjustments made for IRES purposes and with the aim of making its tax base
more adherent to the criteria uses in national accounting to calculate the value of production and
of the value added in the diverse economic sectors.61
The Enlarged Power of Assessment
With this reform, the legislature redesigned the
structure of the IRAP, making it autonomous from
IRES57 and simplifying the calculation of its tax base
55
See G. Zizzo (ed.), ‘‘IAS/IFRS — Codice tributario commentato e aggiornato con il D.M. 1 aprile 2009, n. 48,’’ Codici di
Corriere Tributario, no. 5/2009, p. 17; D. Stevanato, ‘‘Gli incerti
confini dei concetti di ‘qualificazione,’ ‘classificazione in bilancio’ e ‘imputazione temporale’: nuove controversie sul dichiarato?’’ Dialoghi Tributari, no. 5/2008, p. 41.
56
Article 11 bis of Legislative Decree No. 446 of December
15, 1997, has been repealed, which provided the duty of making
the tax adjustments in increase or in decrease to the accounting
outcome as provided by the ITCA.
57
The distance from the IRES will be easily identified from
the new provisions imposing a separate tax return to be presented to the region (or autonomous province) where the taxpayer is domiciled. Article 1, paragraph 50, Law No. 244 of December 24, 2007, makes clear that this reform has ‘‘the aim of
simplifying the rules of determination of the IRAP tax base and
dividing its applicative and declarative discipline from the one of
income taxes.’’ Moreover, the Relation to Finance Act 2008 remarks that:
it cannot be undervalued the conceptual importance and
the systematic range of such operation. The new IRAP, in
fact, will represent the first example of direct tax whose
tax base entirely derives from the accounting outcome: this
process of unhooking of IRAP from IRES, will simplify
the procedures of self-determination and assessment of the
tax itself and will have the non secondary effect of eliminating from the accounts the gathering of deferred IRAP
taxes.
The new legal relevance given by article 83 of the
ITCA to nontax criteria imposes their relevance both in
determining the IRES tax base and in the assessment
phase carried on by the tax authorities, when it is necessary to verify their correct application.62 The partial
58
See P. Petrangeli, ‘‘La rilevanza delle classificazioni IAS/
IFRS nella determinazione della base imponibile IRAP,’’ Corriere
Tributario, no. 5/2009, p. 350.
59
This legislative intervention will be read in the bigger picture of the fiscal federalism, which the government in charge is
trying to put in practice. Such fundamental change would transfer some functions to decentralized levels of government having
a specific taxing power, in application of article 119 of the Constitution. See E. Jorio, ‘‘La legge delega di attuazione del federalismo fiscale,’’ Federalismi.it, Vol. VII, no. 8/2009; G. Melis, ‘‘La
delega sul federalismo fiscale e la cosiddetta ‘‘fiscalità di vantaggio’’: profili comunitari,’’ Rassegna Tributaria, no. 4/2009, p. 997;
G.M. Salerno, ‘‘Verso l’approvazione finale della legge delega per
l’attuazione del federalismo fiscale,’’ Federalismi.it, Vol. VII, no.
7/2009.
60
See R. Acernese, ‘‘Un’occasione storica,’’ Dialoghi di Diritto
Tributario, no. 5/2008, p. 48; M. Damiani, ‘‘Base imponibile
IRAP e corretta applicazione dei principi contabili,’’ Corriere
Tributario, no. 20/2008, p. 1593; E. Spagnol, ‘‘IRAP,’’ in F. Crovato (ed.), La fiscalità degli IAS, Milan, 2009, p. 248.
61
Circular No. 27/E of May 26, 2009, p. 4.
62
Some scholars believe that since tax rules are more rigid
and precise, there is:
an evident fear that, using general criteria, subject to individual appraisal and opinion, it would be the beginning of
continuous interpretative divergences and tax disputes; in
(Footnote continued on next page.)
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
JANUARY 17, 2011 • 249
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
This opening to IAS rules is nevertheless moderate,
since article 83 of the ITCA does not indicate the criteria of evaluation and measurement of the profit and
loss elements in the account. Such limitation expresses
the clear intent of the legislature to safeguard the certainty and stability of the tax obligation against an excessive discretion of tax liability and manipulation of
the accounts by taxpayers willing to reduce their tax
exposure.55 This means that the evaluation rules provided by the ITCA will remain applicable for IAS
adopters.
SPECIAL REPORTS
The diverse fiscal relevance of the evaluations made
by companies in their accounts has concerned some
Italian tax experts,65 who argued that although IAS
and IFRS principles are very structured, tax rules at
least guarantee a higher certainty in their application
and interpretation by tax inspectors. This aspect may
have:
other words, it would be increasing the tendency of tax
assessments based on the legal re-interpretation of the
evaluation made by the taxpayer.
R. Lupi, ‘‘Il rischio di ‘reinterpretazione fiscale’ dei criteri
civilistici,’’ Dialoghi Tributari, no. 5/2008, p. 36.
63
See D. Stevanato, ‘‘Dal ‘principio di derivazione’ alla diretta
rilevanza dei principi contabili internazionali nella determinazione del reddito fiscale,’’ Dialoghi Tributari, no. 1/2008, p. 74; M.
Damiani, ‘‘La valenza fiscale degli IAS/IFRS,’’ Dialoghi Tributari, no. 5/2008, p. 32.
64
R. Lupi, ‘‘Finanziaria 2008 e potere del fisco di sindacato
sui bilanci,’’ in: G. Fransoni (ed.), Finanziaria 2008 — Saggi e commenti, Quaderni della Rivista di Diritto tributario, 2008, p. 202.
Lupi is very critical regarding this power of control attributed to
the tax authority, which paradoxically may give the opposite relevance to the accounts depending on the opportunity: It will
consider the accounts unreliable when they breach the tax rules;
however, in different circumstances the same accounts — if
matching the view of the tax inspectors — represent a further
aid for tax assessment (R. Lupi, ‘‘Reddito fiscale e bilancio civilistico: a sorpresa tornano gli inquinamenti,’’ Corriere Tributario,
no. 40/2007, p. 3235).
65
See M. Damiani, D. Stevanato, R. Lupi, S. Dus, and R.
Acernese, ‘‘Sostituzione dei principi contabili alle regole fiscali e
possibile reinterpretazione degli organi verificatori,’’ Dialoghi
Tributari, no. 5/2008, p. 29; I. Vacca, supra note 40; A. Viotto,
‘‘L’accertamento sulle valutazioni di bilancio: i poteri
dell’amministrazione finanziaria anche alla luce della recente
soppressione delle deduzioni extracontabili e delle modifiche
concernenti i soggetti che adottano gli IAS,’’ Rivista di Diritto
Tributario, no. 2/2009, I, p. 205.
250 • JANUARY 17, 2011
consequences potentially dramatic on the field of
serenity of the relationship tax authority/
taxpayer, already highly compromised by the
tendency of conceiving the tax assessment as a
moment of ‘‘reinterpretation’’ of activities that
correspond to tax bases already declared, and
with a foreseeable explosion of the tax disputes
on evaluation issues and legal-interpretative issues.66
Conclusion
The recent amendments in the determination of the
corporate tax base of Italian companies, the introduction of IAS and IFRS principles, and the more precise
regulation of the dependency relationship between accounting data and the tax base are significant developments in Italian legislation that aim to homogeneously
regulate the tax burden of the companies operating in
the EU internal market.
As noted above, the introduction of IAS and IFRS
rules in Italy will be framed in the bigger picture of
constructing the CCCTB, the final goal that would
guarantee an equal tax treatment of European companies.67 Only when all European companies adopt
IAS principles as their unique accounting criteria will
there be a considerable reduction of compliance costs
and a substantial fiscal convergence that will eliminate
any discrimination or obstacle based on the accounting
system.
The Italian legislature made a transition from an
accounting system based on ‘‘historical cost’’ — an
expression of the principle of prudence governing the
civil profit and loss outcome — to the IAS system,
which measures the economic capacity of the companies on the FMV principle. With Finance Act 2008,
the relationship between accounts and tax liability has
been identified in a strict dependency principle.
The Italian accounting scenario still leaves some
problems unsolved, and the legislature specified the
provisional character of its intervention, which has
been realized:
waiting for the reorganisation of the business income discipline, following the complete transposition of Directives 2001/65/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27 September
66
F. Crovato, ‘‘IAS e controlli fiscali,’’ in: F. Crovato (ed.), La
fiscalità degli IAS, Milan, 2009, p. 302.
67
On the importance of IAS/IFRS principles for the realization of the CCCTB, see C. Sacchetto, ‘‘Gli IAS/IFRS come
punto di partenza per un imponibile comune europeo,’’ Corriere
Tributario, no. 44/2007, p. 3565. On the CCCTB in general, see
L. Kovàcs, ‘‘Le prospettive della CCCTB,’’ Rassegna Tributaria,
no. 3/2008, p. 699.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
application of the dependency principle is the result of
the legislature’s need to give relevance to other interests
in determining the corporate tax base. Those other interests include the need to ensure certainty of tax obligations by providing rules identifying the value of specific income elements on a flat-rate basis, instead of
leaving it to the discretion of the tax administration.
Specific situations not strictly belonging to corporate
tax determination may be subject to taxation by nontax criteria, which again creates a fiscal ‘‘pollution’’ in
the financial accounts, which is manipulated for tax
purposes. The risk of potential tax disputes between
taxpayers and tax authorities on the economic interpretation of account elements would be large, since the
object of such tax cases relates to a complex field involving mathematic and economic evaluations extraneous to the Italian legal tradition.63 Therefore, the
potential increase of tax disputes on the account information will mainly depend on the sensibility of tax
inspectors, who may respect the new discipline or a
tendency to argue that evaluations contained in the
accounts were tax driven.64
SPECIAL REPORTS
68
Therefore, the IAS and IFRS discipline contained in Finance Act 2008 appears as:
[a] bridge solution, destined to cover the transitional phase
from an environment ruled by national accounting standards to another ruled by international ones, at the end of
which will arise the necessity of a ‘‘reorganisation of the
business income discipline.’’
G. Zizzo, supra note 46, at 325.
69
See Magliocco and Sanelli, supra note 34, at 446.
TAX NOTES INTERNATIONAL
tax base from the profit and loss outcome, Italian companies are now in a transitional period, which imposes
on them a relevant cost of management and leaves
many interpretative doubts70 that allow for the higher
discretion of tax inspectors — in breach of the prin◆
ciple of legal certainty.71
70
Some of these doubts have been solved by the Italian tax
authority through its circulars. The interpretation of the Italian
central tax authority on the discipline of realignment of fiscal
and accounting values for IAS adopters, a problem generated in
the previous double track regime, has recently been published
(Circular No. 33/E of July 10, 2009). See F. Bontempo and A.
Dodero, ‘‘L’Agenzia delle entrate illustra il riallineamento dei
valori per i soggetti IAS/IFRS,’’ Corriere Tributario, no. 32/2009,
p. 2579.
71
Ruggiero and Melis, supra note 37, at 1646.
JANUARY 17, 2011 • 251
(C) Tax Analysts 2011. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content.
2001 and 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003. [Article 1, paragraph 58, Law No. 244 of December
24, 2007.]68
In conclusion, despite the ‘‘Copernican revolution’’69
operated by IAS principles in the Italian accounting
system and the enhanced dependency principle of the