��������

I didn't say anybody had got it wrong, it was just not very clearly expressed!  From the phrasing of the circular from the �������� tax office it seems clear that this notion of a long term leasehold property is not familiar in �������� law - hopefully Ram will come in on this becuse he will be more solid.

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 ��������). 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 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!   "Ad esempio, si rileva che per gli immobili situati in Paesi di common law può sussistere sia un diritto di proprietà fondiaria assoluta - “freehold” - che un diritto al possesso dei beni - “leasehold”. Quest’ultimo dà diritto al possesso di beni immobili, disgiuntamente alla proprietà, 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’ordinamento italiano (in particolare, con l’usufrutto), piuttosto che con il diritto di locazione, si ritiene che in tal caso sono tenuti al pagamento dell’imposta in questione i titolari di tale diritto e non anche i titolari della proprietà fondiaria assoluta.

First off, you don't say on which floor the pellet stove is to be installed - assume it is ground floor, and the flue being priced is quite tall. If such a tall flue is necessary (it could be) then the prices seem in line. However, pellet stoves usually can work perfectly efficiently on a ''balanced flue'' - and often all this needs is a hole in the wall and no tall chimney. But you can't locate one of these simple flues if the householder, or a neighbour, has windows directly (or close to directly) above the wall flue outlet.

If your cooker and washing machine are close to each other, and if they are not too far away from the fuse box (and if there is a green and yellow wire in the fusebox), then one safe solution could be to connect (directly into the fuse box) a heavyweight extension cable with a couple of 3pin sockets. Many things these days are double insulated (they will generally only have two wires coming out of them, a blue and a brown) - but washing machines and normal sized cookers normally do require an earth to be safe.

I think it is unfair to accuse Sprostoni of being an attention seeker. Sprostoni had been here for quite a bit - perhaps never putting themself  forward as a major expert in any field, but keeping a dialogue going in an always friendly way - and then someone was (IMO) pretty dismissive of a query Sprostoni had raised. I thought that was (mildly) offensive. Probably it was not intended as offensive, but it was pretty thoughtless. I'm all for a bitchy row, I immensely enjoy observing and participating in quite rude stuff, but I am often bewlidered why prudish forum members get their knickers in a twist when the crude crew get going! The (from a certain point of view) vicious nasty stuff is almost always conducted between 'consenting adults' - (and often quite knowingly served up for 'your delectation and amusement') - and it ramps up the forum views. So - no real harm done. I'm pretty sure that the 'nasty brigade' (and I include myself, it's irresistible on occasions) generally don't go on the attack against any polite forumite.

You may need to do a certain amount of water circulation, but a small fountain with a sponge filter and an underwater 12V pump did the job for me. Waterlilies don't like moving water either, so the fountain was very modest, and the fish didn't seem to care one way or the other whether it was on or not!

It had never occurred to me that an indoor aquarium could be useful - interesting - though it would have to have the water surface open to the atmosphere for the fish to be able to eat the mossies. But, external fish ponds (which Brits are utterly unwilling to consider, and they are quite unusual in �������� gardens), are wonderful at controlling mossies. The fish, I believe, eat the larvae, rather than allowing these to develop into the flying version. (The fact that they eat the larvae makes me slightly doubt the efficacy of the internal fishtank, though I suppose if it was located in a position accessible to outside it could perform like a pond). Anyway, apart from being a collection point for mossies to be consumed by pretty and entertaining fish, a garden pond can have waterlillies and lotus plants and all sorts of other beautiful flowering plants, and they never die of drought (assuming you top up the pond occasionally). 

This sentence, from Panner's last post, is probably relevant and probably the source of many misunderstandings. "The State Pension, although it comes from the UK, will not be taxed in the UK. So you would have to declare the amount on any foreign tax form you might be asked to complete." Now, ask almost any pensionable UK resident of Italy, and they will assure you that their pension is, in fact, taxed in the UK. This is because they have not formally informed the UK tax authorities that they are no longer subject to HMRC. 

We had a bit of cross posting here - I was recommending accepting an offer of €7K, and then sraon said they weren't happy with €12K! Dream on darling seems an appropriate comment.

It is possible in law to donate a property, but I think the person (entity) to whom you wish to donate it must agree to accept the donation. It would cost you no less (probably a bit more) to donate the property than to sell it. I understand that you don't like the valuation of €30,000 (eqivalent to 60,000,000 ITL) -as in equal to the price you paid initially in 1999. I don't know where you are in Emilia Romagna, but it is quite possible that a realistic valuation today is exactly the same as it was in 1999 - this is hard to accept if you have bought in to the idea that property never loses value, but we do live in very difficult times. So - this share in the property stands you at 20,000,000 ITL - which would in 1999 have equated to about £7,000 (without checking the Bloomberg site).  So, what is the offer from your co-owner? Anything approaching €7000 sounds about fair to me. We are not talking about huge sums of money here, but the whole situation does seem to be distressing you, and I think for your sanity you should just take what you can get and put it down to experience! If you are selling, the norm here is that the buyer picks up all the notary fees - your only obligation is to prove you are up to date with taxes (ICI, Tarsu, IMU, possibly any condominium charges). If you do the deal with one of the co-owners (in other words, not involving an estate agent) you won't incur any costs as a seller.