See original
Ettore Chiacchio
--
The hidden wealth tax, which the Italian government passes off as a "stamp duty", has several unconstitutional aspects:
1) in 2012, when it was introduced, it only affected "interest-bearing" capital
2) in this sense they applied it only to financial instruments and money tied up in deposit accounts.
3) they could not apply it to liquid money, because it would have been discriminatory "ordinary current account yes" VS "mattress NO": same form of wealth, different taxation.
4) They initially exempted Italian and European government bonds (but not from other states). This also gave rise to appeals, for different taxation, for the same instruments
5) Initially there was also a maximum stamp duty limit (14,000 euros). This was also unconstitutional, because it rewarded the richest (those who owned 1 billion, and more, in financial instruments and/or tied amounts, paid as much as those who owned 7 million. The exact opposite of the constitutional dictate!
6) on January 1, 2023, to avoid appeals, they found themselves forced to also include Italian government bonds, in the taxed financial instruments. Certifying, in fact, the (partial) default of the Italian state. I remember that a state incurs a technical default when it refuses, for any reason, to reimburse even just part of the capital and/or interest due. Applying a wealth tax, on capital, falls perfectly into this category.
7) to hide this default they pointed the finger, with a lot of punitive media fanfare, at "crypto assets". Considering them, always and in any case, as financial instruments. But this is not true if you equate "foreign currency" held in a non-custodial wallet as "inside the mattress", In particular if non-speculative stablecoins
Therefore, if you move your deposits to non-custodial wallets today, to move them back to Binance tomorrow, I doubt that the Italian state will attempt any recovery of the sum, even to avoid ending up paying the costs as well, as happened recently, in the courts that accepted appeals against "novax" fines
1) in 2012, when it was introduced, it only affected "interest-bearing" capital
2) in this sense they applied it only to financial instruments and money tied up in deposit accounts.
3) they could not apply it to liquid money, because it would have been discriminatory "ordinary current account yes" VS "mattress NO": same form of wealth, different taxation.
4) They initially exempted Italian and European government bonds (but not from other states). This also gave rise to appeals, for different taxation, for the same instruments
5) Initially there was also a maximum stamp duty limit (14,000 euros). This was also unconstitutional, because it rewarded the richest (those who owned 1 billion, and more, in financial instruments and/or tied amounts, paid as much as those who owned 7 million. The exact opposite of the constitutional dictate!
6) on January 1, 2023, to avoid appeals, they found themselves forced to also include Italian government bonds, in the taxed financial instruments. Certifying, in fact, the (partial) default of the Italian state. I remember that a state incurs a technical default when it refuses, for any reason, to reimburse even just part of the capital and/or interest due. Applying a wealth tax, on capital, falls perfectly into this category.
7) to hide this default they pointed the finger, with a lot of punitive media fanfare, at "crypto assets". Considering them, always and in any case, as financial instruments. But this is not true if you equate "foreign currency" held in a non-custodial wallet as "inside the mattress", In particular if non-speculative stablecoins
Therefore, if you move your deposits to non-custodial wallets today, to move them back to Binance tomorrow, I doubt that the Italian state will attempt any recovery of the sum, even to avoid ending up paying the costs as well, as happened recently, in the courts that accepted appeals against "novax" fines
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.
157
0
Replies 0