(Finance) – “On the subject of biennial preventive agreementwe witnessed yet another inadequate management of the process which led to the definition of the instrument. It is essential work with certain and defined rulestherefore when changes are introduced, it would be appropriate to grant at least 60 days to professionals, in order to guarantee adequate time for study and application. It would be a useful time to work with a clear and defined framework, which allows us to interact with customers with greater certainty and not always in a provisional and continuously updated framework”. He states Francesco Cataldi, president of the National Union of Young Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts.
“An example comes from the two-year preventive agreement”, explains Cataldi. “One instrument that saw its debut last February: decrees and provisions followed which defined the requirements, the calculation methodologies, the causes of exclusion and forfeiture. Despite everything, Today the picture is still incomplete“.
Serena Giannuzzi, Fiscal Area Delegate of Ungdcecunderlines: “Just over a month from the deadline for sending the declaration forms, the regulatory framework still presents numerous grey areas: only yesterday the “maxi circular” was published by the Revenue Agency which with 64 pages of clarifications should theoretically remove all doubt. In the meantime, customers are asking for advice and waiting to know if the tool will actually prove to be a crucial measure with concrete benefits for businesses. But – Giannuzzi points out – this is not clear either: the first big question that we as professionals ask ourselves is in fact How much appeal will the measure have for businesses and professionals?. It is not certain that this machine that has been talked about for months now and which the higher-ups are trying in every way to make more attractive, will actually find space among taxpayers”.