Italians new tax..... SNAFU

[what next]

It could discriminate EU citizens who are not resident in Italy against
Italian residents ...

Did they ("Europe Advice") really read and understand that law before writing their letter? The tax also applies to Italian residents, therefore this point will certainly not help.

But maybe

Incidentally, the imposition of taxes on foreign registered aircraft may contravene provisions of Article 15 of the International Civil Aviation
Organisation’s Convention on International Aviation.

will provide some leverage.

[Fitter2]

Did they ("Europe Advice") really read and understand that law before writing their letter? The tax also applies to Italian residents, therefore this point will certainly not help.

Yes, they did:

Article 14 bis of
the decreto-legge seems to impose the tax on foreign registered aircraft
that remain in Italy for more than 48 hours with the possible consequence
that a foreigner visiting or conducting business in Italy in an aircraft or
2 days must pay the same amount as does the Italian resident for an entire
year. This could mean for you that you have to pay a lump sum of
450 per
year if you fly to Italy with your glider or balloon and stay there for
longer than 48 hours.

Once applicable, Article 14 bis of the decreto-legge could therefore indeed
pose a problem under European law:

[what next]

Yes, they did:

In my understanding of the law there is no discrimination here. On the contrary: The owner of the Italian registered plane has to pay in any case (even if his aircraft is based in the Bahamas and he never intends to visit Italy) whereas foreign registered planes can fly to Italy as often as they like without tax, provided they depart after 47:59 hours (maybe for one traffic pattern?). The same principle applies to the Swiss motorway tax: The residents who use the roads every day pay the same amount as the tourist who crosses Switzerland in two hours on his way to a French ski resort. No one has ever filed a discrimination complaint because of that. (I know, Switzerland is not in the EU, but similar motorway taxes exist in other contries).

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to defend this law as it is, I simply don't believe that it can be brought with this argumentation.

[Shorrick Mk2]

The same principle applies to the Swiss motorway tax: The residents who use the roads

And therein lies the problem - the Swiss motorway tax is a flat usage tax (one may think that it is a tad steep @40CHF... however going to Cannes one way on French motorways is going to cost you more than that)

Whereas you could argue that usage of Italian airspace and airport infrastructure is (or should) already be covered by ATC and landing fees and this new tax is nothing else than a wealth tax as opposed to an usage fee.

[AN2 Driver]

what next:

If we were talking of a 40$ tax and would have to glue a sticker on our plane, I think we might grumble but just do it.

The problem with what they do here is very different.

First of all, the amounts are totally outrageous.
Secondly, there is a discrimination against foreign based and owned airplanes, insofar as that Italians have the possibility to actually pay fractional amounts if the aircraft has not been immatriculated for the whole period, foreign aircraft are charged the FULL tax after 48 hours.
Thirdly, they are violating essential ICAO and European law.

It is encouraging to see that whoever Europe Advice are seem to think along the same lines. I do hope that there will be court decisions on this soon, so this garbage will have to be retracted. Until then: Avoid Italy.

[stuckgear]

if you fly to Italy with your glider or balloon and stay there for
longer than 48 hours.

so what happens if your ballon or glider enters Italy on a trailer ? or if it flies into italy and then is packed down into a road trailer ?


wouldn't then amount, in essence, to an 'import duty' ??

further to that, could a heavier than air / powered aircraft of foreign registration, receiving a taxation demand for being on Italian soil longer than 48 hours also be considered a form of 'import duty'?

[what next]

Secondly, there is a discrimination against foreign based and owned airplanes, insofar as that Italians have the possibility to actually pay fractional amounts if the aircraft has not been immatriculated for the whole period, foreign aircraft are charged the FULL tax after 48 hours.

If I read the text correctly, the fractional amounts apply to all aeroplanes that have not been on their register all year. Anyway, if you know the hassle involved to put something on any register in Italy, you would rather pay the tax than de-register and re-register...

Thirdly, they are violating essential ICAO and European law.

The problem is, that there is no such thing as ICAO law or European law. ICAO and the EU-treaties are multi-national contracts with the aim of producing common national laws. But we are very far from that goal. Just look at the first Jeppesen binder: 80 percent of it's contents is about national differences to ICAO standards. Here, we just have one such difference more.

Italy is currently caught between a rock and a hard place: Either they violate the Euro-stability criteria by not collecting enough taxes to stabilise their national budget or they violate some aviation and tax treaties by imposing injustified taxes on a handful of persons.

[Shorrick Mk2]

that there is no such thing as ICAO law or European law. ICAO and the EU-treaties are multi-national contracts with the aim of producing common national laws. But we are very far from that goal. Just look at the first Jeppesen binder: 80 percent of it's contents is about national differences to ICAO standards

Actually it's not exactly like that. Any supranational agreement has "force of law" albeit not being called "law". Thus the ICAO Convention is in fact law, whereas the SARPS are not as they are not supranational treaties (hence the differences you mention...). As far as European law - there is already a huge body of European laws!

Further on, international agreements once signed and ratified supersede national law. Any decision taken on the basis of a national law that is in contravention to an international agreement the country is party to is null and void and can be attacked in justice. This is established practice, and vast amounts of jurisprudence attest to this.

Not that it helps much when you have your plane impounded - but.

I for one wouldn't dare say in public that collecting taxes on planes is going to help Italy abide by the euro-stability criteria... that's like saying you're going to fill your swimming pool with a teaspoon.

[silverknapper]

Well they are chasing it, through handling agents initially it seems.

[Dg800]

In my understanding of the law there is no discrimination here.

Oh yes there is. Think of a German entrepreneur who travels to Italy to do business on his foreign registered, non-AOC company plane. Let's say he has to compete with an Italian company that wants to offer the same service/goods. The Italian entrepreneur will travel on a similar plane and, while it is true that he will pay the same Italian tax on it (provided he is not exempt through an AOC), he will not get to pay any tax that the German company has already paid for the same plane, in their country of origin!

So we have a situation here where a foreign competitor will have to recoup higher costs than a local one, thus giving the Italian competitor an unfair advantage. The only way to dispose of this unfair advantage is either by making the Italian competitor pay German taxes as well, which would be silly and completely unenforceable to boot, or by making the foreign competitor only pay taxes in their country of origin. It would be akin to a foreign airline having to pay, say, Italian social security contributions for their employees if they operate to and from Italy in addition to any contributions they already pay for them in their (the employees') country of residence. This would create a huge unfair advantage for Italian airlines and effectively push the foreign competitor out of the market.

There's a boatload of EU regulations in place exactly to prevent this kind of situation arising and to ensure a fair and free access to EU-wide markets to any of its members, this law obviously contravenes them and can, and hopefully will, be challenged in a EU court.

Ciao,

DG800

[Dg800]

Well they are chasing it, through handling agents initially it seems.

Do you have anything more specific?

[Shorrick Mk2]

Originally Posted by what next

In my understanding of the law there is no discrimination here. On the contrary: The owner of the Italian registered plane has to pay in any case (even if his aircraft is based in the Bahamas and he never intends to visit Italy) whereas foreign registered planes can fly to Italy as often as they like without tax, provided they depart after 47:59 hours (maybe for one traffic pattern?).

No "discrimination" - but still illegal. See art. 15 of the ICAO convention:

No fees, dues or other charges shall be imposed by any contracting State in respect solely of the right of transit and entry into or exit from its territory of any aircraft of a contracting State or persons or property thereon

The law as it is worded now is can be construed as an entry / exit tax and in direct violation of the above.

[what next]

The law as it is worded now is can be construed as an entry / exit tax and in direct violation of the above.

I don't know. There is no tax for entry or exit, only for prolonged stay. This is not forbidden in the referenced ICAO article.

[Shorrick Mk2]

Correct, but "prolonged stay" or the duration of stay is defined by "entry" and "exit"... in other words you can exit free of charge only before H+48.

[Pace]

Not good ! 300,000 euros for a large biz jet the Italians have lost their marbles!

Italy Plans to Tax Private Aircraft | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

Pace

[aviation2]

Charging foreign registered jets has got to be counter productive

Speaking to a G550 crew this week, they just dropped their principals off in Italy and immediately relocated to Croatia to park up the aircraft for some time before they pick up the pax again. They use Universal for flight planning and certainly believe that they would have incurred EUR300,000 or so if they got stuck in Italy for any reason for longer than 48 hours.

They are going to try to avoid trips to Italy again in the future due to this risk, so Italy has just lost some very high net worths who invest and spend heavily wherever they choose to go. Even this time, Italy has lost parking charges and crew local spending. Multiply that thousands of times over and Italy has got to have lost out of this ridiculous tax.

And with the risk of some unforeseen event delaying departure of a business jet, Italy will soon be a no-go territory for private aircraft and their passengers, just like the worst parts of Africa or Latin America are from a kidnapping or crime point of view if you are seen to come in in an expensive aircraft.

[Pace]

Aviation2

I also have a trip coming up to take the owner to Sicily, leave him for a week and then overnight in Venice.
I will drop him locate to Malta, collect him and then into Venice and away.
The big risk is if on any of these stages a mechanical problem arises which would make a departure impossible.
The owner will do this trip as its arranged but in future will also go elsewhere and take his money with him as even with this planning a mechanical fault could be very expensive.

Pace

[AN2 Driver]

Pace and all,

it might be an idea to somewhere collect the details of everyone avoiding Italy and the extimated net loss to the Italian economy this avoidance does.

[badwx]

Hi all,

after few weeks from the "presumed" introduction of the famous tax, does somebody here have some evidences of the implementation?

Thank you!
Cheers and wish you a nice weekend
Marco

[stephenwilliams40]

collecting the tax?

According to several Italian FBO's they have not received any instructions regarding how this tax is to be collected. Currently it is not being collected at the airports.