On eco-bonuses, the state unloads its burdens on businesses, says Cna

A high-intensity debate has developed around the ecobonus system for the redevelopment of real estate assets in which causes and effects often tend to get confused, which denote a lack of inclination to plan public policies, the absence of measurement of the effects of instruments and which mobilize huge resources, the propensity of the legislator to continuously modify the rules, so that the rules of the game become the game of rules.

The latest government modification interventions in the context of the “Aiuti-quater” decree therefore represent an opportunity for a series of reflections on building incentives and more generally on strategies to support and strengthen the country’s growth potential.

The premise is that the issue of eco-bonuses, and in particular of the Superbonus 110%, must be tackled according to two very distinct guidelines. The first concerns the legal structure, the economic endowment of the measure and the time horizon for the achievement of certain and clear objectives with a view to sustainability for the public finances and for the reference market. The second, on the other hand, must focus on the critical issues that have emerged, on the problems that the mechanism has unloaded on businesses, and on market distortions.
On the first, the CNA has always offered the willingness to the last four governments to open a discussion table to put the eco-bonus system in order starting from two essential conditions: the incentives to be effective and efficient must be based on a framework of legal and financial certainties and have stability over time, a medium and long-term horizon. On this assumption, measures and tools are built according to strategic objectives.

The second, on the other hand, requires rapid corrective action by the government and Parliament to remove the obstacles to the proper functioning of the market. And there is no doubt that blocking the transfer of tax credits represents a dangerous vulnerability for an audience of around 750,000 companies in the construction sector and consequently also for the financial system itself. The 11 changes to the transfer mechanism, over thirty to the general regulation of eco-bonuses, are not extraneous to the blockage of the credit market. For over a year, all political forces have been aware that the dimensions of the problem are spreading rapidly, putting the survival of thousands of companies at risk and therefore the urgency of a definitive solution. However, the response developed by the government has betrayed expectations. The possibility of transforming the tax credits accumulated by companies that have recognized the discount on the invoice into bank loans does not meet expectations. This is the umpteenth attempt to unload the burden of an obligation that is entirely on the part of the state onto the corporate fabric.

Among other things, the public guarantee through Sace does not protect companies from the deterioration of creditworthiness indexes (it is still a loan) and provides for a series of conditions that risk wrecking the “good intentions” of the legislator. In particular, to access the guarantee (equal to 90 per cent), the loan cannot exceed 15 per cent of the company’s average turnover over the last three years.

A recent survey by us shows that almost 50,000 companies in the construction sector are unable to sell the credits accumulated in tax drawers and 75 percent of the “frozen” credits have a deposit of more than five months. An alarming situation, a source of very strong tensions on the liquidity of companies that put their survival at serious risk. And these are above all micro and small enterprises, the most exposed to market distortions.

The certainty of the transferability of tax credits by companies in the supply chain is the essential condition for supporting the invoice discount mechanism. A simple truth that continues to be ignored by the government and Parliament, also forgetting that eco-bonuses are transfers of resources to citizens and not to businesses. In fact, that mechanism has distorted the contract between the state and the beneficiaries of the incentives. The state recognizes a bonus to property owners for redevelopment interventions but asks the companies that carry out the works for an act of great generosity by anticipating the value of the contract which the state will then reimburse comfortably in 5 or 10 years on condition that the company has sufficient fiscal capacity. A method that obliges companies to play the improper role of financer of works on behalf of the state and considers that turnover and taxes are equivalent quantities in the income statement of companies.

The new government, in continuity with the previous one, with weak and instrumental arguments, offloads burdens and responsibilities that belong exclusively to the state on companies. It is time for the public sector to fully answer for its choices.

Othello Gregorini
general secretary Cna