The basic function of the operation of financial leasing is a loan for the acquisition in the enjoyment of property by a user. So, if the property is missing or was never delivered, the leasing agreement can not be considered made, and service charges, accused of costs for the year, they become non-deductible. This was established by the Supreme Court Judgement No 23,230 last October 27 by extending the field of direct taxation the principle repeatedly in various decisions (Case 5038/1999, 9665/2000, 7498/2001, 12549/2001, 14710/2001, 15379/2002) on eligibility Tax deductions in the case of the absence of delivery. In particular, the sentence no 15379/2002 lend itself to an analog extension, while referring to a different setting, when it reads "... no acknowledgment of the contractual claim, because of the close interdependence of the purchase agreement and the assignment in the enjoyment of movable property, excludes the implementation of the lease (whichever is the subjective state of the contracting parties) and the ability to deduct the sum that the invoice issued by the person who appears as a supplier, stating that VAT charged by way of revenge .. "and continues that" ... it is not permitted to deduct VAT from the purchaser, upon proof that the item purchased is not never been given to the user .. "E 'then consolidated the' orientation according to which the leasing operation can be considered carried out only with the actual delivery of the goods, and that this may generate only the ends of the grantor the right to deduct VAT by way of revenge. Given this, we can see how the ruling object in our commentary engages in a kind of transmigration of these principles in the field of direct, non-deductible, making the lease payments charged by the lessee between the costs for the year when it is found that the good is non-existent (in this case the dealer had never exercised any activity) and, as such, certainly can not be left in enjoyment to the user. Consequently, ".. the delivery never happened spoils the fundamental cause of atypical preventing the substance of the implementation of the leasing operation .. ". For judges in fact ".. the basic function of the operation of financial leasing is a loan for the acquisition in the enjoyment of property by a user" and ".. where there are the existence or the delivery of good such objective data also do not depend on the particular conduct of the parties, the leasing operation does not perform its basic function, which is the loan for the acquisition in the enjoyment of that item by the user, and disbursement of the grantor results in a sort of funding for the person who appears as a seller of the property, but in reality he never had or has never lost the availability .. ". That's why the absence of good or non-delivery of the same, the operation of the lease is invalid to relatively 'indirect taxation - resulting in a non-deductibility of VAT - both in the field of direct taxation - resulting in the inevitable non-deductibility fees. Also of note the wording of the Judgement of engraved final step in which the judges of the Supreme Court stressed that ".... The operation should be considered fictitious non-existence of well .. ". Words chosen at random and certainly not that make it possible to apply in cases similar to that in the middle of the sentence in question, the discipline of crime with respect to taxes on income and value added, resulting in the same discipline and the same consequences for the use of invoices or other documents for nonexistent transactions.
