non-payment deemed payable

[d-prom]

Good morning, everyone.
What happens in case I have stated in the title?
I explain: for more or less all 2010 I worked (I am free professional) for a small company of hinterland Milan whose owners I discovered then to be real bandits, and from which I detached as soon as I could. I will not be telling all the wrongdoings of these characters because I would inlay the forum, I just say that their practice was that those who stop working for them (both by their own choice and by their decision) from them no longer see a euro if not going through legal ways. I managed with a ruse (of course legal) to make me pay the last two bills. But now I am afraid for about 9000 euros of withdrawal that should be paid. knowing the subjects I'm not sure they pay them.
precise that all invoices I have issued to them have been paid regularly and that I can produce bank account statements showing that invoices have been paid net of the claims.
I have heard in this regard different versions: someone says that by not being able to produce the certification that demonstrates the payment I can not deduct those 9000 euros from the tax return, I have to pay them taxes and then they are [Bleep] mine to recover them from them (obviously going to embark on a civil cause...), always that in the meantime they do not fail again (they have passed through a "allegro" failure in 2009, with which they sodomized practically all their suppliers, some with 6 digit numbers... )
Someone argues that by presenting all the documentation I can do some kind of self-certification, and that then they're the [bleep] of the state getting the money from the vans mentioned above.
Does anyone know anything about it?
Thank you in advance.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

It is not that it understands much, but the concept of the tax substitute should not mean that the debt of 9000€ towards the state has them in fact the substitute?

deduction from your statement is another account, but I think you should reason as if you had to deal with an honest company. You have all the right not to have it, do you?

Maybe for this second point you feel your accountant.

 

[d-prom]

It is not that it understands much, but the concept of the tax substitute should not mean that the debt of 9000€ towards the state has them in fact the substitute?

if things worked logically. but remember that we are in Italy, and that where logic ends the Italian fisco. ...

 

[MBT]

I explain: for more or less all 2010 I worked (I am free professional) for a small company of hinterland Milan whose owners I discovered then to be real bandits. . .

without making names, as it is not correct... Are they also engaged in the petrochemical sector????

 

[stefanobruno]

as it is incorrect

But is their system very correct?
I would be to thoroughly describe the characteristics of the company, without giving its name but making it clear to who was in turn involved as it could end.
Am I wrong?

 

[africagia]

But is their system very correct?
I would be to thoroughly describe the characteristics of the company, without giving its name but making it clear to who was in turn involved as it could end.
Am I wrong?

I agree. I would also be curious to know the legal stratagem to make you pay the last two bills. It's useful in life to know how to behave with some people.

 

[d-prom]

without making names, as it is not correct... Are they also engaged in the petrochemical sector????

No. I'll send you a pm tonight.

 

[maxopus]

read a little here, it would seem that you should have no problem.
I took the text from the perego tax study site

with the judgment no. 14033 filed on 16 June 2006, the Court of Cassation has raised the problem of the acceptance claims suffered by the professionals pursuant to article 25, 1 paragraph, of dpr 600/73 . not always at the time of the drafting of his own income statement the professional obtains and/or receives from the substitutes the certification provided for by art. 7-bis, same dpr, suppressed and reformula.
the court had considered that in the absence of the prescribed attestation, the “replaced” could not assert in its tax return the deemed suffered and therefore be required to pay the subsequent taxes. a co-responsibility between the substitute and the replaced regardless of the fact that Article 64, 1 paragraph, of dpr 600/73 considers that the person responsible for payment of the deferred tax is the substitute.
with the telematic transmission of income statements has become ordinary activities of the offices of the revenue agency proceed to the investigations pursuant to article 36-ter of d.p.r. 600/73.
with regard to professionals, the problem is re-proposed annually for the acceptance claims suffered. the professional assumes the qualification of “replaced” and in the more of the fisco never end the “sets” that do not provide to send in the terms the certifications of the claims made, or to make the payment, but the professional. Although the rule provides for specific sanctions under the “set of tax”, with the ascertainment referred to in the 36-ter the sanctions fall on the professional, which not only is required to repay part of the taxes (i.e. the equivalent of the sum that has been retained by the “set of tax”), but also applies sanctions and interests.

with resolution 68/e/09 of 19 March 2009 the agency of revenues, thanks also to the numerous judgments, both of the tax and cash commissions, has provided the possibility for the "replaced" to be able to use different certifications of those issued pursuant to article 4, paragraph 6-bis of d.p.r. 322/98 and therefore to discompute from own income the deemed subite by attaching the document some difficulties, however, remain in case of cash collection.
the resolution provides that the professional, subject to the control referred to in Article 36-ter shall attach a substitutional declaration of act in which he certifies under his own responsibility, that the documentation attesting to the payment refers to a certain amount regularly accounted and that there were no other payments (even if the non-application of the statement) by the substitute.

already with a previous resolution, No 1034/e of 31 October 1977, the then Ministry of Finance had considered it admissible to attach, as equivalent to certification, the accompanying letter with which the compensation is paid if it contains the elements required by Article 3 of d.p.r. 600/73.
On this subject, several judgments were expressed in both tax and cash commissions (to name a few: 3 February 1995. with a thousand-six. xxxi n. 490 of 1998, comm. trib. reg. of lombardia sez xxi n. 188 of 4 May 2001), which have always claimed that the “replaced” can produce any document (such as photocopy of the received cheque, bank transfer, accompanying letter of the cheque, photocopy of the model f24 actually of the payment performed by the “setholder”, etc.) of the same opinion the judgment No 8806 of 2 October 1996 of the Court of Cassation. the central tax commission, with judgment no. 1303 of 3 April 1995, has been pushed beyond considering that any sums retained by the “set of tax” cannot be required also to the “replaced”, according to the prohibition of double taxation placed by Articles 7 and 67 of d.p.r. 600/73 when due to omissive effect of the “set of tax” the taxpayer is immediately not required.
Article 22 of d.p.r. 917/86 stipulates that the “replaced” disbursed by the tax on the deposits to the source as deposits made prior to the presentation of the income statement, while Article 4, paragraphs 6-ter and 6-quater of d.p.r. 322/1988 establish the obligation in the end of the “replacement” the person responsible for the payment of the tax remains the “set of tax” and never the “replaced” percipient.
the aforementioned judgment of the Court of Cassation n. 8606 of 2 October 1996, in a clear contrast with the judgment n. 14033 of 16 June 2006, believes that the “replaced” is not punishable for any defaults of the “set of tax” and also believes that the normative system is conceived in such a way as to ensure that the “replaced” remains completely foreign to this. In fact, the tax could not oppose that the “set of tax” has failed to pay the sum retained.

in the opinion of those who write it is not said that it has put an end to the disputed phase deriving from the failure to receive the certifications of the claims of acceptance suffered but it is recognized that with resolution 68/2009 a further step forward towards simplification was made by the financial administration. Over time, various forms of deterrence have been applied to self-employed workers and I have never seen sanctioned a “set of tax” in order not to have sent, even in the foreseen terms, the certification of the claims made. it would be useful and opportune that the fisco, in addition to requesting the documentation compromising the claims of acceptance suffered, would be concerned to recover in the head of the “substitutions” any claims not paid and began to sanction the lack of respect of what provided by article 4, paragraph 3-bis of d.p.r. n. 322 of July 22, 1998.

stefano m. perego

 

[MBT]

But is their system very correct?
I would be to thoroughly describe the characteristics of the company, without giving its name but making it clear to who was in turn involved as it could end.
Am I wrong?

no, it is not correct
but if you write "the company xyz s.r.l. it is composed of Pharaohs because they have not paid me two invoices for a total of 37.000 €" you are liabilities of denunciation for slander.. .

 

[stefanobruno]

but if you write "the company xyz s.r.l. is composed of Pharaohs

In fact, I do not say that I give precise references and judgments, but try to put on the notice other possible involved, it seems necessary to me.
I think that saying that a company in the province of xx, who does a yy type of work, does not pay the design suppliers for 6 months or did not pay me the zz year's claims is an information, not a slander, I did not say that they are pharaohs, but I think so. (Is there still freedom of thought? )

 

[MBT]

it becomes extremely opinabile...
if you tighten too much the circle, the name becomes "palese" and risks...
Moreover, it is still only one bell, but it is not given to know if the company xyz did not pay you because it is administered by lazzeroni or because you delivered a crappy job and also late.. .

 

[d-prom]

no, it is not correct
but if you write "the company xyz s.r.l. it is composed of Pharaohs because they have not paid me two invoices for a total of 37.000 €" you are liabilities of denunciation for slander.. .

Right. and this even if you demonstrate with unbearable evidence that what you claim is true. Unfortunately we live in a country where absolute subjects most protected by the law are the criminals (see the countless cases of gasoline, jewellery, etc. ended up under trial for voluntary murder or attempted murder for reacting to a robbery attempt... ).

 

[d-prom]

I agree. I would also be curious to know the legal stratagem to make you pay the last two bills. It's useful in life to know how to behave with some people.

simple: I cheated them. read more qui: I told them I had to be operated back on the foot and then I had to stop for a couple of months. So they paid me regularly, convinced that I would return. Then, as soon as I cashed out the last money, I told them I was gone.
It's not like I've been horrified that I've been doing such a behavior, but it's the only time in my life that I screwed someone I worked with. but they were really the pharaohs who deserved that and something. Besides I was out of about 7000 euros, and considering that I also have wife and two dependent children. . .

 

[d-prom]

But is their system very correct?
I would be to thoroughly describe the characteristics of the company, without giving its name but making it clear to who was in turn involved as it could end.
Am I wrong?

In fact, I do not say that I give precise references and judgments, but try to put on the notice other possible involved, it seems necessary to me.
I think that saying that a company in the province of xx, who does a yy type of work, does not pay the design suppliers for 6 months or did not pay me the zz year's claims is an information, not a slander, I did not say that they are pharaohs, but I think so. (Is there still freedom of thought? )

Okay, so I'll tell you the whole story.
there was once a small mechanical company that from here on we will call "pippa srl" (it is obviously not its real name). the owners were two associates, which we will call from here on "enrico" and "mauro" (they are obviously not their real names). enrico was the CEO. towards the end of 2009 pippa srl was drowning in debts; in November 2009 enrico and mauro constituted a new society, the "new pippa srl", in which two other people were drawn in as associates: two employees who had been introduced just to show the world that there were new partners, but they actually count as the two of spikes. of this new society the ad is mauro. the new pippa srl stipulates a contract of rent of company with which he rents the activity of pippa srl (in practice if they are rented it to themselves). an employee who had been fired in October (not overcoming the trial period) has not yet received not only the tfr but not even the last salary, the 13th, etc.
I start working for the new pippa srl towards the end of November 2009. I issue a couple of invoices as an occasional performance (one in 2009 and one in 2010) and then reopen the game iva that I had previously been forced to close.
in January 2010 a supplier who took it in the derethane for the small amount of more than 200000 € presents an instance of failure for the pippa srl. failure is accepted, the pippa srl no longer exists and the new pippa srl goes on. the above employee also ended up in failure and in June I knew he had not yet taken a penny.
another dismisses, works until the end of January and that I knew in July had not yet been paid.
but let's go back a minute.
There was another supplier with which pippa srl had gone on for a long time to do unused and then to put itself in place only when it was forced to do so to receive more material. then a nice day they made an "unusual" just less than 50000 €. the supplier was, to tell the British, "very upset". only that then enrico and mauro needed some things from this supplier to give spare parts to customers, which supplier had been perennial: pay everything you have back and pay in advance everything you want, otherwise we don't give you a...
the two zuzzurrelloni then make a transfer for the entire digit, they send a copy of the transfer by fax and as soon as you have confirmed that the material has left block the transfer. It's useless to say the supplier got a little pissed off. this few weeks before failure.
but we draw before. the head of the technical office goes on board at 31 March 2010. the last time I heard it was the end of September, and still did not drink a quarter. He said he had put everything in his hand to a credit recovery agency (I don't know if the regular ones or those that break their arms). the 14th monthly payments are paid with a month of delay. another dismisses and works until July 15th, and he no longer takes a penny.
Two workers work in black for about twenty days and are not paid.
another supplier that had not been paid by pippa srl was an external company that had modified a machine already built to suit the needs of a Dutch customer. not having taken the money, did not provide the drawings of the modifications. if not that the customer wanted the spare parts catalog, penalty the non-payment of the machine, and who writes had to go to the olanda (voghera-amsterdam in the car) and to detect all the pieces of that machine and then to do it.
Meanwhile, the parade of the inferocy suppliers begins for delays in payments.
the new manager of the technical office is fired at the end of September, also he because "has not exceeded the trial period". On Christmas and New Year's day, he told me he had to get some money.
to an outsider who followed the entire computer network was given the welcome in early August, and no longer saw a penny of the more than 10000 € that still had to receive. In this case it should be said that he had tried to force them to pay for it by blocking all the pcs of the company, which remained firm for a week. I know you sent a payment injunction, and there should be a hearing in February.
I end in mid-October with another company, and I implement the expedient I described above, which worked.
I think I'm the only one who worked for them and didn't get it in the ass.

 

[d-prom]

alarm back, boys. today came the declaration of payment. thanks to all those who gave me suggestions.