(Finance) – L ‘National Union of Young Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts (UNGDCEC) expresses strong concern about the position of the Ministry of Economy and Finance on the obligation to certify conformity for all documents filed in tax judgments, introduced by the new paragraph 5-bis of art. 25-bis of Legislative Decree 546/1992, applicable to the procedures started from 2 September 2024. The request for indiscriminate attestation, According to the ministerial interpretation, – explains UNGDCEC in a note – risks slowing down the digitalization process, imposing disproportionate charges on the defenders and limiting the right of defense guaranteed by art. 24 of the Constitution. This obligation, in fact, would also extend to documents for which a legal evidentiary effectiveness is not required, going beyond the general principle which provides for the certificate only for acts with legal value, such as public or authenticated ones.
“The MEF line on the certificate of all attachments in tax disputes – he says Francesco Cataldi, President of the National Union of Young Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts – It is contradictory compared to the electronic nature of the process. Ungdcec firmly asks for a clarifying legislative intervention and invites the MEF to reconsider the expressed orientation, in order to avoid unnecessary procedural complications and guarantee a balance between digitalization and protection of the rights of the parties “.
“Ask professionals to reconstruct the entire evidentiary material that they digitally produce in documents in the original – he underlines Federico Giotti, vice -president Union of Young Accountants – It is practically impossible. Furthermore, to certify the conformity to the original of each individual document filed in the procedural file risks creating significant problems for those who sponsor the causes of a tax nature “.
For Francesco Paolo Fabbri, member of the national council and delegated to the tax process“the rules are to be interpreted with equity and consistently with the system, hoping for an ever less uncertainty. There is the need that the legislator legislates in a clearer way, especially where relevant interests are at stake for the recipients of the regulatory provisions, but also making sure that the” official interpretations “are such as not to put limits unjustified to the protection of the rights involved”.