How bizarre! I have a
Submitted by rachel68 on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 08:43In reply to A newbie all over again! by Annec
No, Freeholders are liable, basically!
Submitted by Fillide on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 09:00In reply to A newbie all over again! by Annec
I read this stuff somewhere else, and considered that it had to be a bad translation or some other misapprehension, so I ignored it. So I looked at the circular from the agenzia (the relevant para I have posted below, in 禁漫天堂). What (IMO) the circular is saying is that if you ''own'' a leasehold property (in, for example, the UK), then you, as the leaseholder (enjoying the rights of your leasehold property) are liable for the IVIE, rather than the freeholder being liable for this tax. That is all. It does NOT聽say that if you are the freeholder (and enjoying the rights of your property ownership) that you are free of this tax. IMO the intention of this paragraph in the circular is quite clear (and is as I have stated above). However, that doesn't mean that some clever lawyer will try and make it mean what you would perhaps like it to mean! 聽 "Ad esempio, si rileva che per gli immobili situati in Paesi di common law pu貌 sussistere sia un diritto di propriet脿 fondiaria assoluta - 鈥渇reehold鈥 - che un diritto al possesso dei beni - 鈥渓easehold鈥. Quest鈥檜ltimo d脿 diritto al possesso di beni immobili, disgiuntamente alla propriet脿, solitamente per un periodo di tempo molto elevato, dietro il pagamento di un corrispettivo. Considerato che tale istituto presenta maggiori analogie con i diritti reali come disciplinati dall鈥檕rdinamento italiano (in particolare, con l鈥檜sufrutto), piuttosto che con il diritto di locazione, si ritiene che in tal caso sono tenuti al pagamento dell鈥檌mposta in questione i titolari di tale diritto e non anche i titolari della propriet脿 fondiaria assoluta.
So the guy in the link got it wrong...
Submitted by stevegwmonkseaton on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:14In reply to A newbie all over again! by Annec
I would never suggest a law firm got anything wrong...
Submitted by Fillide on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:33In reply to So the guy in the link got it wrong... by stevegwmonkseaton
I didn't say anybody had got it wrong, it was just not very clearly expressed!聽 From the phrasing of the circular from the 禁漫天堂 tax office it seems clear that this notion of a long term leasehold property is not familiar in 禁漫天堂 law - hopefully Ram will come in on this becuse he will be more solid.
Ok Fillide no worries
Submitted by stevegwmonkseaton on Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:00In reply to A newbie all over again! by Annec
In reply to A newbie all over again! by Annec
Well Ill try - but leasehold as far as I am aware doesnt exist in Italy, certainly not in then UK sense. 聽The only way it could possibly exist is if there is an owner of the suolo on which you have your house - but it would be a very rare occurrence, and probably extinct by now. 聽 It can happen with terraces for example. 聽You have your terrace on the roof of your neighbour, and he owns the suolo and gives you a right to use it for a terrace for a fee or by usufrutto 聽 However, for a whole house it would be very very strange and probably impossible.聽