As a result of decision No. 228/2014, Constitutional Court is illegitimate ascertain greater income against the self-employed based on the presumption that unjustified withdrawals from bank account are automatically at a cost to turn a production revenue.

In the version of art. 32 of D.P.R. # 600/73 in force today no longer exists, the presumption that unjustified levies for self-employed persons are alleged undeclared income generators.

This is what emerges from the judgment No. 12021/15 the Supreme Court – Tax Section.

A Director of real estate for third parties, as a result of banking investigations, became the recipient of a notice of assessment for the recovery of tax allegedly undeclared income as well as an act of protest that administrative penalties irrogava.

As the Court of second instance has essentially endorsed the work of the Finance Department, the dispute was concerned the Supreme Court, which gave reason to the taxpayer in respect of the use of presumptions of banking pursuant to art. 32 of D.P.R. # 600/73 than those who engaged in an activity as a self-employed or professional.

The ermines, noted the self-employment activities carried out by the taxpayer, have considered "nonexistent" legal presumption on which is based the assessment notice in question because the Council, by decision No. 228/14 said illegittimità costituzionale dell'art. 32, D.P.R. # 600/1973, as modified by law No. 311/2004 in so far as they extend to self-employed workers compensation presumption under which, even in relation to such subjects, the withdrawal from your bank account would be a cost to turn a production revenue.

Although the figure of the entrepreneur and self-employed are in many ways similar in national law as in Community law there are specific features of the latter category which led the judges to assume arbitrary of the homogeneity of treatment provided for by the contested provision, which as the pick up from my bank account would be a cost to turn a production revenue.

And then, for the ermine, does not conform to the decision of law cannot be regarded as CTR operating presumption under art. D.P.R 32. # 600 of 1973 with respect to withdrawals made by the taxpayer: "cited a declaration of unconstitutionality," writes the S.i., "intervened, with reference to art. 32, par. 1, n. 2, d.p.r. # cit 600. in the modified version today, but it must be noted that what was deleted was precisely the presumption on which was fondatol ' notice of assessment and that is why unjustified levies for self-employed persons were alleged undeclared income generators ".

The cause was taped before the CTR of the marches.