The Difficult Match of Securities and Compensation in Joint Accounts
What each holder can do with respect to joint relationships
The use of joint accounts, managed with single or joint signatures, on the basis of the presumption of 50-50 ownership of the sums held in the account, is historically recognised as the primordial form of estate planning. However, the operation of joint accounts, particularly when linked to securities deposits, raises complex and critical issues that relate mainly to three areas: tax, inheritance and compliance.
"The tax area is crucial," explains Alberto Chiesa, head of Wealth Planning at Mediobanca Private Banking, "especially with regard to the securities deposits attached to the joint account. These deposits can be structured by providing both a common (joint) heading and separate (nominal) headings for each individual joint holder." As Chiesa explains, the common section of the securities deposit includes the investments that make up the vast majority of Italian investors' choices, namely bonds, government securities and open-end mutual funds. In the nominal sections, on the other hand, only shares and certain types of registered closed-end funds can be deposited.
When it comes to securities one of the issues that immediately comes to mind is that of capital loss netting. "The distinction between headings is fundamental to the compensability of capital gains and capital losses. Capital losses are allocated per individual, based on the tax code. If a capital gain is realised on a registered share (located in the registered section), it can be netted 100% against the capital losses on that individual's registered position. If a capital gain is realised on a bond (located in the common/joint section), it can only be netted 50% against the capital loss position of one individual and the remaining 50% against the capital loss position of the other individual."
These rules, applied by the market, greatly influence the use of nominative capital losses and estate planning. 'It must be taken into account that these offsets,' adds Renzo Parisotto, tax expert, 'take place with each individual depositary intermediary (see so-called administered regime or managed regime), whereas in the case of the declarative regime it will be up to the taxpayer himself'.
Co-ownership (see also the article on the next page) also has consequences from the succession point of view. The consequences of the death (de cuius) of one of the owners vary depending on the nature of the asset and the heading of the deposit: 'Given that such securities are usually deposited with intermediaries/banks,' adds Parisotto, 'the latter are in turn required to comply with Article 48 of the Consolidated Law on Succession, which requires them to "not release" the assets of the deceased until proof of proper compliance for succession purposes is provided (see most recently Provv. Ade Director of 13 /02/2025). The instructions to the model specify what information to provide for the financial assets, with specific regard to deposits held with intermediaries.
