The Advisory Commission for monitoring the application of Ministerial Decree 58/2017 answered various questions, including how the references to the seismic “class transition” should be interpreted
This time the clarifications – precious, important – do not come from the tax authorities but from the advisory commission for monitoring the application of Ministerial Decree 58/2017, which answered some questions from the CNI Foundation. In this first article we explore some of them.
We ask for ‘light’ on the price lists, considering that the Ministerial Decree of 6 August 2020 on technical requirements – Annex “A” prescribes in point 13.1 that the documentation that must be prepared by a qualified technician includes the estimated metric calculation and the asseveration on compliance with the maximum costs by type of intervention, according to the following criteria:
- a) the costs by type of intervention must be lower than or equal to the prices reported in the regional (or autonomous provinces) territorially competent price lists, alternatively the qualified technician can refer to the prices listed in the guides on the “Building information prices” published by DEI publishing house – Typography of the Civil Engineers;
- b) in the event that the aforementioned price lists do not include relevant items, the new prices can be determined analytically, possibly using the prices indicated in Annex I.
As regards the indication referred to in point a), there is the problem of the possible hierarchy of the items and one wonders:
- i Should Regional price lists be used as a priority, resorting to DEI price lists only in case of lack of specific references to single items? Or the The term “alternatively” allows the designer to use one or the other at his own discretion?
- in a single bill of quantities, will it be possible to refer simultaneously to some items of the Regional price lists and to other items of the DEI price lists, and then possibly also to new prices determined analytically?
The Commission considers that the metric calculation can be drawn up using, from time to time, the items of the two price lists admitted for use, assuming that the technician in charge always choose the technically relevant price item with the actual processing to be carried out, which can be present in one of the two price lists indiscriminately. This statement is also supported by the fact that the Technical Requirements Decree does not provide for a specific priority between the two admitted price lists in letter “A” of point 13 of the annex.
Asseveration of charges for professional services
Where it is necessary to insert the charges for professional services within the “type” modules of the sworn statements of the requirements for the interventions referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of art. 119, which must be drawn up and presented by the qualified technician? In these forms always and only the references on the costs of the works appear and there is no trace of where the charges for professional services must be inserted and explained. The question is therefore whether the intention is to include the charges for professional services within the costs inherent in the work. It should be noted that this does not appear feasible as the costs for each individual intervention (or for each type) are requested in the modules, while the professional services are to be considered in their entirety and cannot be divided into single intervention.
The Commission highlights that in the model implemented in the ENEA portal, in line with the provisions of paragraph 1 of art. 119 of Legislative Decree 34/2020 and subsequent amendments “… The deduction referred to in this letter is calculated on a total amount of expenses not exceeding …“. So, in the entry “total amount of expenses” all costs must be entered, including that relating to sworn translations, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 15 of art. 119 of Legislative Decree 34/2020 and subsequent amendments: “The deductible expenses for the interventions referred to in this article include those incurred for the issue of the certifications and sworn statements referred to in paragraphs 3 and 13 and the compliance approval referred to in paragraph 11.“In this regard, in order to facilitate users, in the relevant fields of the aforementioned portal, a special explanatory lunette has been inserted that clarifies the expenses to be entered, including professional charges. It should be noted that the fees relating to professional services must be divided among the various types of intervention; in the case of belonging to the same category of works (construction, thermotechnical systems, electrical systems) the corresponding fees may be divided in proportion to the amount of the work of the individual interventions.
Passage of seismic class
In terms of structural interventions, the primary law (Article 119 of the Relaunch Decree) it clearly refers to previous laws that did not foresee any performance milestones.
To this end, MIT, with decree 329/2020, modified the sworn statement referred to in Ministerial Decree 58/2017, introducing the option “no class leap”Next to the existing ones (passing a class or 2 or more classes).
The decree of the MISE (inter-ministerial decree with the concert also of the MIT) of August 2020, in art. 2 paragraph 1 letter b) points (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), for eco-bonus interventions, reads:
- b) interventions on the building envelope of existing buildings or parts of existing buildings, referred to in paragraph 345 of art. 1, of the 2007 Finance Act, referred to in paragraphs 2, letters a) and b), 2-quater and 2-quater.1 of art. 14 of the decree-law n. 63 of 2013, referred to in paragraph 220 of art. 1 of the law 27 December 2019, n. 160 and pursuant to art. 119 paragraph 1, letter a) of the Relaunch Decree. These interventions may concern: (… omitted …)
- iv. the common parts of condominium buildings, which affect the building envelope with an incidence greater than 25 percent of the gross dispersing surface of the building itself;
- v. the common parts of condominium buildings, which affect the building envelope with an incidence greater than 25 per cent of the gross dispersing surface of the building itself and which achieve at least the average qualities referred to in tables 3 and 4, of the Annex 1 of the EPA Guidelines Decree;
- you. the same interventions referred to in points iv and v, carried out in seismic zones 1, 2 and 3 which simultaneously determine the transition to a lower seismic risk class, as established by the decree of the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport February 28, 2017, n. 58;
- vii. the same interventions referred to in points iv and v, carried out in the seismic zones 1, 2 and 3 which simultaneously determine the transition to two or more lower seismic risk classes, as established by the decree of the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport of 28 February 2017 , no. 58
How should they be interpreted the references to the seismic “class transition” in the light of the references on which the primary law is based, who do not speak this language?
The interministerial decree 06/08/2020 “Technical requirements for access to tax deductions for the energy requalification of buildings“Establishes the technical requirements to be met and the procedures to be used in order to access the tax deductions pursuant to law 296/2006 and art. 14 of Legislative Decree 63/2013, bonus facades, when energetically influential, as well as to the super bonus pursuant to art. 119 of Legislative Decree 34/2020.
In this regard, it should be noted that points iv), v), vi) and vii) of art. 2, paragraph 1, letter b of the aforementioned inter-ministerial decree, refer to the interventions provided for by paragraphs 2.quater and 2.quater.1 of Legislative Decree 63/2013 – which is still in force – and which applies to buildings of any destination of use, unlike the Superbonus 110% intended mainly for residential buildings.
Unlike when art. 2 paragraph 1, of the “eco-bonus requirements decree“, Refers to the superbonus 110% expressly mentions art. 119 of Legislative Decree 34/2020.
Given the above, paragraph 2.quater refers to the interventions that give the right to the deduction of 70% and 75% and are energy redevelopment interventions:
- 70% when working on more than 25% of the dispersing surface;
- 75% when in addition to this there is also the achievement of the middle class of the behavior of the building envelope pursuant to the decree of 26 June 2015.
Paragraph 2.quater.1 resumes these interventions together with the seismic risk reduction interventions (so-called EcoSismabonus) admitting that if the reduction of a seismic risk class is achieved, the deduction is equal to 80% while if you have the achievement of reduction of two or more seismic risk classes the deduction is 85%. These paragraphs remain in force and in the implementing decree what is stated above is made explicit in art. 2 paragraph 1 letter b), in points iv, v, vi and vii.
Definitely the above does NOT apply to the SuperEcobonus, but exclusively as governed by paragraph 2.quater.1 of art. 14 DL 63/2013.
THE DOCUMENT WITH ALL THE COMMISSION’S CLARIFICATIONS – PUBLISHED BY CNI – CAN BE DOWNLOADED IN PDF FORMAT
To have an orderly guide on SUPERBONUS, ECOBONUS, SISMABONUS
Go to our special page “ALL ABOUT ECOBONUS – SUPERBONUS“
Go to our special page “ALL ABOUT SISMABONUS – SUPERBONUS“