The Guardia di Finanza focuses on new active repentance with a special directive aims to illustrate the procedures to be adopted by the Auditors in relation to the provisions recently introduced.

In fact, the stability law 2015 has profoundly modified the institution of industrious, making it also possible, inspections and audits.

More precisely, if the payment of the amounts due after the preparation of PVC the penalty is reduced to 1/5: hence the PVC represents the real watershed, before which the penalty is reduced to 1/6 and after which the discounts are lowered and the penalty is reduced to 1/5.

In General might be two different situations:
-the taxpayer opts for active repentance after preparation of daily tracking report;
-the taxpayer presented the taxes owed after the notification of the report process.

The first hypothesis is certainly one to arouse the strongest misgivings, as it is not clear whether that be applicable sanction reduction to 1/5 is simply the mere daily tracking report, or need the proper PVC.

Analyzing the layout, and wanting to provide a literal interpretation, it could be concluded that, in view of the reference to article 24 of the law 4/1929, would require the preparation of PVC, because the daily verification report contains no formal surveys.

However, nothing precludes an interpretation less favourable to the taxpayer, in consequence of which would be required to pay penalties reduced to 1/5 as a result of the mere writing of minutes daily (and not only sanctions reduced to 1/6)

GDF's directive, unfortunately, there are no useful guidance in this respect, since, actually, this is a matter within the competence of the Bureau of internal revenue (which, in fact, will have to recognize the validity of repentance busy).

It could happen that, during the checks, the GdF to detect possible offences, for which the taxpayer has already provided the active repentance.
In this case, however, the transmission of which news of crime to the Court? Or repentance "Save" the taxpayer?

Well, in the directive of Gdf you back to remember how repentance does not exclude criminal responsibility, but represents merely a mitigating circumstance pursuant to article 13 of d.Lgs. # 74/2000.

Therefore, even if the taxpayer has provided the repentance of verifiers will work to convey the news of crime to the courts, leaving the pm assessment of possible mitigating factor.

Different situations may porsi verifiers.

It may happen that the taxpayer has already healed by repentance violations prior to commencement of the audit.
In this case, GdF will check, using the databases available, the payment, and, after assessing the risks, decide not to start the inspection activity. This choice must be justified.
Please note, however, that there is no rule that prevents the GdF control, although the position has been regularised by means of repentance: well may then initiate the verifiers inspection activity.

A high situation that might be envisaged is one where the taxpayer mend violations during inspections.
In this case a distinction must be made between two situations:
-the taxpayer presented violations falling within the subject of verification: the Auditors will verify the documents that the taxpayer must provide them, from which emerges a successful fulfilment. Upon verification, you may decide to continue checking on other aspects, or close it.
If the taxpayer regulates violations already contained in daily tracking report the Auditors will have to give evidence in the next PVC;
-the taxpayer give violations that do not fall within the subject of verification: the Auditors will continue their checks but still give evidence of repentance in PVC.