The dilution of the Superbonus tax credits that can be offset in 2027 in installments for the next ten years could cost the banks around 3 billion in writedowns. This was revealed yesterday by the director general of the ABI, Marco Elio Rottigni, following questions from parliamentarians during the hearing of the House and Senate commissions on the maneuver. Compared to the total 18 billion, credit institutions hold a share of between 70 and 80 percent, with a value that fluctuates between 12 and 14 billion.
"The measure would intervene in relation to credits acquired on the basis of a use calendar already defined by law and would modify their economic and financial values and, therefore, it would appear like a forced restructuring of a state debt", said Rottigni, recalling the fact that it represents "a risk for the public debt". The DG did not say it explicitly, but the problem that arises is whether the Eba rule would be applicable to the State which, in the case of this type of restructuring, requires banks to reclassify the debtor as insolvent. «For banks, which must adopt international accounting standards and comply with stringent European prudential regulations, there would be significant negative effects on the income statements, on assets, on liquidity which is associated with a further cost associated with inflation», he underlined. The devaluation of these credits, based on the provisions of the EU calendar provisioning rules, must already be accounted for in the 2026 balance sheets. The liquidity problem, moreover, does not arise only for banks. This provision also poses "liquidity problems for companies" that own these tax credits, "and this risks worsening their creditworthiness". Rottigni then pointed out that the Superbonus measure «is in contrast with what was established by the Constitutional Court (sentence 111/2024), which considers it illegitimate to affect the economic calculation of companies “now for then”».
Doubts about the constitutionality have been raised on the various measures of the maneuver, which cost around 7 billion in two years and which are added, he observed, to the 15 billion already requested from the sector with the maneuvers launched in 2024 and 2025. The one that hurts the most concerns IRAP, with the reduction from 90 to 30% of the deductibility of administrative expenses and depreciation. «The strong reduction in deductibility would seem to presume the non-inherence of amortization and other administrative expenses to banking activity. This presumption would violate the principle of the effectiveness of the ability to pay (see, among others, Constitutional Court sentences no. 225 of 2005 and no. 10 of 2023). Furthermore, the hypothetical presumption would clearly conflict with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. And it is important to point out that the Constitutional Court has clarified that the legislator is not free to regulate the taxable base of the tax as he wishes, which must be rationally related to the prerequisite (see sentence no. 262 of 2020)", Rottigni declined the principles of jurisprudence, suggesting that on this point there would be the most fertile ground for a possible challenge. The general manager recalled the distortive effects of the rule, which would weigh more heavily on smaller banks (which have a higher cost income than large banks).
Rottigni highlighted the penalty that the law would have on investments, not just those in technology, security and digital. «The proposed legislation would strongly penalize the expenses connected to the territorial presence of banks through branches and financial offices and would add to the already higher level of IRAP rates applicable to banks (+0.75 percentage points), subsequently increased by another 2 percentage points by the 2026 budget law for the three-year period 2026-2028». And again. «A further aspect concerns the cost components of fiscal origin which are a cost on the bank's production factors, such as non-deductible VAT, which now becomes deductible for IRAP purposes only for 30%»» he observed, stating in conclusion «the ABI strongly proposes the need to identify improvements that reconcile budget objectives with the competitiveness, solidity and ability of the banking sector to support families, businesses and public administrations in compliance with the constitutional provisions».
