Beware of those peddling for 4.0 a capital asset that is not 4.0-related

The title of this post may seem obvious, but – from what I am hearing in general – perhaps it isn’t that obvious.
Many of us have benefitted and/or will benefit from Super and Hyper depreciation.
The news this week is that the Inland Revenue has commissioned over a thousand inspectors to verify that those who have made a request really do have all their papers in order. That the companies, therefore, who have benefited, above all, from Hyper Depreciation, meet the requisites imposed for Industry 4.0 and, in the same way, that the capital assets purchased by them are among those listed in Annex A to the Budget Law and that they can be assimilated within a company’s management system or supply network.

Precise and non-subjective compliance with the requirements that the company in question – at the time of a possible inspection – will have to

demonstrate through the presentation of a report/certificate of conformity accompanied by a technical analysis.

Otherwise, in the case of non-conformity a very heavy administrative sanction is applied, equal to the sum that could not be depreciated, to which is added a penalty ranging from 90% to 180% of what this company has not paid. Furthermore, this sanction can also result in a criminal case in the event of more serious violations.

These are the facts. What will happen after the checks obviously we cannot know.
The usual “sly” ones who have tried to pass off a Super amortisation as a Hyper one in order to benefit from higher concessions will probably be sanctioned. And probably those who, perhaps in good faith and without too much consideration, for example, have trusted a not particularly honest machine sales person who passed an asset for 4.0 who instead did not have all the right credentials to do so, will also be penalised.

In fact, today hearing businesses discussing it, almost all of them can benefit from the Hyper depreciation and almost all the machines they sell have the requisites to fall within the category 4.0, even when this is not the case. Leveraging on state incentives, in fact, is an excellent sales tool and unfortunately some people are using it to take advantage of the good nature of the buyer they are dealing with.

But remember: a machine that is latest generation and/or technologically very advanced, but without certain characteristics, is NOT definable as 4.0. And in the same way a machine that has certain characteristics cannot always be assimilated within the management system being used in a company. So beware!

Recently I went to an interesting seminar organized by API  precisely on these issues and the advice of insiders was in fact

to always demand clarification on the purchase contract to ensure the asset being bought meets the requirements relating to 4.0. Almost no-one does so but these questions should be asked.

The fact that a machine does not meet all the requirements of 4.0 does not necessarily mean that it is not suitable for what is needed or that it is not very advanced from a technological point of view. But perhaps it means that it is not one of those instrumental assets referred to in the Budget Law and/or that it cannot be assimilated within a company’s management system or the supply network.
So perhaps it is perfect for what needs to be done but cannot be used to take advantage of the depreciation in case of purchase (but only of the Super).

Be careful therefore of being naive on this front. Because ultimately it is only the buyers that experience the risks!

Nor should it be forgotten that, in dealings with the State, the consultant who, hypothetically, has issued us with a false report/certificate of conformity will not be liable. Of course, in the event of a penalty, a claim can be made against them but I always have in mind the advice that a lawyer gave me some time ago:

Never worry if someone sues you. You should only worry only when you decide to sue someone!