Fight against evasion, contributions redistributed to municipalities do not take off: in Naples only 773 euro

The sums redistributed to the municipalities to combat tax evasion are still marginal and uneven and, in many cases, decreasing compared to the past. Almost only a few large cities in the North benefit from the contributions: Milan leads the ranking with €397,992 in 2024, followed by Genoa and Turin. While other realities receive little or nothing: Rome collects just €3,570, Naples €773, Palermo €1,373; Catania and Cagliari do not register a single euro. The criticalities are highlighted by a study carried out by Uil's Fiscal Policies Service, highlighting that the mechanism does not take off. A dynamic, it explains, that may reflect both a downsizing of assessment activities and the effect of the cut in state co-participation, which has gone from 100 per cent to 50 per cent.

As the Uil study explains, tax evasion in Italy continues to exceed EUR 90 billion a year, a river of resources diverted from financing essential services. Against this phenomenon, the vigilance of the central state should be flanked by local authorities, for proximity and knowledge of the territory. Today, the law incentivises the fight against tax evasion through the return of a share, which has varied in percentage terms over the years, of the amount recovered by the municipalities. Yet, looking at the data on state contributions paid in 2024 for 2023 collections, it is clear that the mechanism does not take off. The sums redistributed to the municipalities are still marginal and uneven and, in many cases, decreasing compared to the past. This dynamic may reflect both a downsizing of assessment activities and the effect of the cut in the state co-participation from 100 per cent to 50 per cent, which makes the commitment less convenient.

According to data compiled by the union, almost only a few large cities in the North benefit from the contributions. Milan leads the ranking, followed - at a great distance - by Genoa, Turin and Prato. While many realities that would have a strong interest in fighting evasion receive crumbs or nothing at all: Rome collects just 3,570 euro, Naples 773 euro, Palermo 1,373 euro; Catania, Cagliari, Caltanissetta and Trapani do not register a single euro. The North-South divide is also resounding at regional level: Lombardy exceeds 1.24 million euro, while Sicily as a whole stops at just over 8,000 euro, Campania at 6,820 and Calabria at 70,509 euro. The problem is not only geographical: the sums disbursed are decreasing almost everywhere. Genoa has fallen in one year from 863,459 to 381,871 euro, Rome from 18,277 to 3,570, and Florence from 60,175 to 47,886.

As Uil further points out, many municipalities, especially small and medium-sized ones, do not have staff trained in tax matters or sufficient funds. Moreover, Uil reports in the note, 'cooperation with the Revenue Agency remains cumbersome and there is a lack of offices capable of using complex databases' and 'above all, there is no national plan that defines standards, incentives, transparency criteria and, perhaps, rewards for virtuous administrations. The result is that the ability of local authorities to effectively collect what is due to them is compromised. This situation,' Uil writes, 'translates into fewer effective resources, which the central system cannot then redistribute fully and consistently'.

'For local tax supervision to become truly effective,' points out Uil's confederal secretary, Santo Biondo, 'the 100 per cent co-participation must be brought back on a stable basis, with automatic and certain disbursements. Then the tax offices must be strengthened, hiring dedicated staff and investing in continuous training. Where individual municipalities cannot cope, inter-municipal offices must be created, the 'local anti-evasion units', which add competence and critical mass. Full digital integration with the Revenue Agency is also indispensable, to access cadastral and income information in real time and produce qualified reports. An annual prize for the best performance, coupled with a public report on the activities of the municipalities, would give visibility and a concrete incentive to good practices'.