Imu, the double exemption is triggered for spouses with different residences

The Imu of the first house does not depend on the family unit. The Constitutional Court’s is a real turnaround, which returns the double exemption to spouses who live in properties located in two different cities. It will be up to municipal controls, not unconstitutional norms, to verify that the geographic separation of the family is real and that the spouses actually reside in two separate houses. The board’s reasoning is simple.

Husbands and wives who live in two different municipalities, for example for work reasons, and who usually meet under the same roof only on weekends, or when they have free days, are entitled to exemption from Imu for both properties. . Provided, of course, that they really respect the dual requirement of residence and habitual residence that allows them not to pay the tax. “In our constitutional system, citizens cannot find tax measures structured in order to penalize those who, thus formalizing their relationship, decide to marry or establish a civil union”, reads sentence n. 209 filed yesterday (rapporteur Luca Antonini), with which the Constitutional Court declared article 13 of decree-law n. 201/2011 where talking about “family” ends up penalizing it. The illegitimacy was also extended to other regulations, namely those which, for family members, limit the exemption to only one of the properties located in the same municipality and which provide that they opt for a single concession when they have habitual residences and addresses. This last rule, specified the Court, was introduced by the legislator to react to the orientation of the jurisprudence of legitimacy: the Supreme Court came, in fact, to “deny any exemption on the main residence if a family member resides in a different municipality from that of the property owner”.

The Council clarified that this orientation depended on the reference to the family nucleus as it emerges from the norm on which the Court authorized the question of legitimacy; then specified that this guideline is outdated, because in a “context like the current one”, “characterized by increased mobility in the labor market, by the development of transport and technological systems, by the evolution of customs, the hypothesis that persons united in marriage or civil union agree to live in different places, meeting periodically, for example on weekends, remaining in the context of material and spiritual communion”.