(Jamma) In illustrating his opinion on the Imu decree, Gian Luigi Gigli (Scpi) went over the rule contained in article 14, highlighting how it contributes only partially to the coverage of the decree-law. “It is a question – explained Gigli – of the facilitated definition on appeal of administrative-accounting liability judgments. In clear words, these are the judgments involving the concessionaires for the management of the telematic network of lawful gaming, sentenced to compensation for tax damages for having violated the service obligations relating to the failure to connect the gaming machines to the appropriate telematic network. These game operators were sentenced to pay compensation totaling 2,4 billion.
It being understood that the undersigned remains opposed to a choice which in fact constitutes a tax amnesty for the benefit of a category that is certainly not deserving for the community, what I would like to underline here is the judgment given by the Court of Auditors on the revenue expected from this I forgive. In fact, the Court underlined in a hearing that no concessionaire has so far made use of the faculty granted by article 14 of the decree-law, for which there is only time until 15 October, but what I would like to point out is that if the revenue proves to be lower than expected – which are around 600 million – the safeguard clause contained in the same provision would be triggered, i.e. a further increase in IRPEF, IRES and IRAP advances and in excise duties up to total coverage of any "gap". An eventuality on which the same Court of Auditors has invited to dwell on for "the significant effects of a distributive nature" that would derive from it".
