According to Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Royal decree-law 21 February 1938, n. 246, concerning the discipline of subscriptions to the radio listening, is obliged to pay the subscription fee anyone holding one or more acts or adaptive equipment for reception of radio listening.
With the technological progress the devices capable of allowing enjoyment of TV images increased, so much so that the reception of the television signal to date is also permitted by personal computers, smartphones and tablets.
On this point, the Ministry of Economic Development Department of Communications in a note dated February 22, 2012 stated that the purpose of the occurrence of the obligation to pay the broadcasting license fee, for “acts appliances or adaptable to the reception of radio listening “to be considered amenable to rent all the equipment bearing the tuner for receiving the signal (terrestrial or satellite) of the antenna radio and television broadcasting.
it follows that those without televisions but only a personal computer does not have a tuner – but which allows listening and / or viewing of TV and radio programs, also on the network (digital signage, or the like), via Internet- shall not be subject to fees.
Finally, moreover, has been clarified by the Rai that vision only streaming of programs does not imply the obligation to pay the broadcasting license fee [1].
On the other hand, a device originally provided with tuner – typically as a television – remains subject to fees even if a private then the tuner itself (for example, because it is intended to only be used for watching DVDs).
as an indication only, please note that, even if it is called “subscription fee”, it is still a tax on the possession and / or television set detention, reason why the canon It must be paid regardless of the use of the TV or on the choice of broadcasters.
Such a provision, in fact, originally configured as a fee payable by users of a service reserved to the state and exercised under concession, has long assumed the nature of input tax, it is not commensurate with the actual possibility of using the service concerned, the financing of which the fee is intended, but being due, however, on the assumption of his amenability to an event, reasonably identified, the ability to pay (about to see. Cass., Sec. a., 20068/2006) .
This principle, now consolidated in doctrine and jurisprudence, it was clarified by the Constitutional Court in judgment no. 284 of 2002 which states that “ is no doubt that the subject of the proceedings is the obligation to pay (…) of the broadcasting license fee: the latter does not find its reason in the existence of a specific contractual relationship that binds the taxpayer, on the one hand, and the body (…) that manages the public broadcasting service, but it is a tax benefit, based on law, not commensurate with the actual possibility to use the de quo .
on this point also contributed also the Strasbourg European Court in its judgment of 31 March 2009 [2], made it clear that the television license fee is “ a tax due by reason of the possession of a document to receive equipment any television program “and adds that” the fee Rai is in effect a tax intended to finance the public service of radio and television broadcasting. (…) a system that would allow them to see only private channels without paying the license fee, provided that may be technically feasible, would be to denude the tax of its very nature, namely to contribute to a community service and not, however, a price to be paid in exchange for the receipt of a particular television network . ” Indeed, in rejecting the appeal, the Court reiterates that there is no violation of the right to receive information and even interference in the right to respect for private and family life, as laments the part.
On the basis of a fiscal nature this levy, it is derived that the obligation to pay the broadcasting license fee is subject to the jurisdiction of the tax court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 2 of Legislative Decree n. 546 of 1992, as amended by Law no. 448 of 2001, article 12 paragraph 2 (cfr. Cassation, ON, November 20, 2007, n. 24010).
On the basis of the principles outlined so far, most recently, the Supreme Court by order n. 1922/16 made it clear that the obscuration of the Rai channels does not extinguish the obligation to pay the broadcasting fee
That judgment intervenes to define a dispute for non-payment of license fee for years from 2002 to 2007.
in particular, the CTR Lazio accepted the arguments of the taxpayer, deemed illegal the payment demand issued by the Inland revenue, arguing that the payment of the fee was not due, having the taxpayer requested in 2002 the darkening of the Rai networks and in 2008 declared the television has not been used because broken. By application to the Supreme Court, the Tax Office requested the reform of the second-instance judgment for misapplication of art. 1, 10 and 12 of Royal Decree-Law no. 246/38.
Indeed, the Supreme Court, building on the foundations set out above, he has accepted the appeal of the Revenue, not believing that the obscuration of the Rai channels fall into the category of extinguish made in art. 10 of the Royal Decree-Law.
In fact, according to Art. 10 of the aforementioned Royal Decree-Law, the compulsory settlement of payment of the fee is realized only upon the occurrence of the following events with attached requirements:
1) ” if the subscriber does not wish to or can not, for whatever reason, more use of circular and continues to hold the device with him “
the denunciation , compiled on plain paper, it must contain the specification of the device type that you are holding and must be sent by registered mail with return receipt no later than November of each year. Together with the complaint must be sent as money order of 5.16 euro, payable to the Revenue, due to the so-called expenses. sealing and the Subscription booklet RAI (if applicable) [3].
The sealing is to make it unusable, usually by locking in special casings, all detainees equipment by the holder of television fees and the members of his family at any place of their residence or stay [4].
the termination of TV license denounced by 31 December waiver from January 1 of ‘ next year.
2) “ if the user intends to sell or dispose of the device”
in the same way as provided for the first case, if the subscriber intends to sell or dispose of your unit is still obligated to the complaint, which must indicate the surname, name, and address of the transferee or paternity buyer.
In this case, contrary to the provisions in the previous case, the user is relieved of the obligation to pay the amount of 5.16 Euros.
L ‘ user with six-month subscription that sells or sell the instrument in the 1st half of the year is exempted from payment of the fee relative to the 2nd half provided by June 30, denouncing the Office of the Register from which is joined role with the successful sale of the transferee or buyer and evidence that the latter has paid the license fee.
However, in the case examined by the Supreme Court, the taxpayer had declared the television has not been used only in 2008, while for previous years had prompted the blackout only network which, as can be inferred from the foregoing reasoning, is not among the facts extinguish the obligation to pay the fees. Therefore, properly applying the provisions of art. 10 of Royal Decree – Law, the legitimacy Judges considered legitimate the tax bill issued.
It should be noted that the Law n. 208/2015, art. 1, paragraphs 152 et seq. (Law of Stability 2016), with effect from 1 January 2016, partially amended the legislation and the tax system for private subscriptions.
In particular, with regard to the mode of payment and collection, It predicted that that fee (the amount is 100 euro, not 114 euro as no longer subject to excise of 14%), to be paid in the ordinary way, by charging in ten monthly installments from January to October , the supply of electricity bill.
This innovation assumes that all homes (which are used for primary residence) where he planned to supply electricity, then you also have a television set. That presumption can, however, be challenged by dispatch of a special self-certification to the Inland Revenue (Office Torino 1). It is understood that the subscription fee is due only once in relation to all equipment held by the members of a registered family in places used for own residence or stay.
By 2016 the first complaint comes after 1 July 2016.
(American Lawyer, 16 February 2016. Article Maurizio Villani and Antonella Villani )
_____________
[2] See European Court of Human rights, sect. XII, (Pres. Tulkens), March 31, 2009, I c. Italy (application no. 33/04).
[3] On this point see www.centroconsumatori.tn.it. In particular:
- if you own the subscription booklet to Rai: send by registered A / R the marked cards with the letter D (which you must tick “Will make seal the TV “), the receipt of the money order and the subscription book;
- if you do not have a subscription booklet to Rai: send by registered a / R letter along with the money order receipt, making photocopies of everything.
[4] Art. 12 – Closing and re-opening of the devices – “At the closing and reopening of the devices in the cases referred to in art. 10 provide the technical departments of the central government to which the Registry Offices communicate the names in the lists.
The package that contains the device must be closed with iron wire with all ‘ends of a lead seal stamped Technical Office and is left on deposit to the user with all the legal consequences. The closure of the unit must be recorded in the minutes drawn up in three copies, one of which will be delivered to the user, another sent to the competent office of the Register because it takes note of the consistency register of subscribers; The third copy will remain at the Office Valuation Office.
The minutes shall indicate in general subscriber, the number of them, and the role of the Register Office at which the ‘ subscriber is registered, and the type and number of dell’aperecchio of which the device is equipped with valves.
on user request the periods of inactivity, as well as with the housing, it can be adjusted by other means deemed appropriate by the Valuation Office. In this case, the user’s request and the means used for device without use must be recorded in the minutes of the above.
No comments:
Post a Comment