Hyper-amortisation, the 'made in the EU' clause is dropped
The announcement by the Deputy Minister for the Economy, Maurizio Leo during Telefisco 2026
Incoming corrections on hyper-amortisation. The 'made in the EU' clause for investments will disappear; there will no longer be territorial limitations. This was announced by the Deputy Minister for the Economy, Maurizio Leo during the 2026 edition of Telefisco.
"Today, the perimeter of the hyperamortisation," he said, "is well delimited, we are only talking about interventions made in the European context. To correct this post, the subject of much controversy, 'there were several hypotheses on the table. There was talk of G7 countries but there were contraindications, the other hypothesis was to extend the requirement to the countries of the customs union, but some countries could be excluded'.
In this regard,' the deputy minister said, 'I can give you good news, we are working with the aim of eliminating these territorial limitations. So, regardless of where the investment is made, that investment is rewarded and can benefit from the hyper-amortisation'. This news will be included 'in the next legislative measure'.
Elbano de Nuccio (accountants): 'Measures are structural'
The president of the National Council of Accountants, Elbano de Nuccio, welcomes the news of the enlargement. "On intangible assets, such as software, we have manufacturers that are mainly located in the US, in Japan. To do away with this facilitation is to be limiting'. But this is not the only intervention that would be useful. "We have repeatedly emphasised the need for these measures to become structural, so as to achieve uniform investment planning". Furthermore, it would be 'useful to concentrate the number of communications'.
Rosario De Luca (labour consultants): "Criteria to be specified"
The president of labour consultants, Rosario De Luca, spoke about the restrictions on payments by the public administration to professionals, which were imposed by the last budget law. "Starting from the assumption that those who have debts should bear them is a shareable principle, but one has to see on a case-by-case basis. Even if the principle is right, there is a need for some clarification. For example, we need to understand what is meant by public administration. We probably need to be more precise and put a few more stakes in place'.
