Decreto Visco-Bersani found to violate EU directive

interesting development... http://www.lavoripubblici.it/2007/dettaglio_notizia.php?agap=czo4OiJOVEF... I haven't had time to read this properly yet but it looks like the powers of the authorities to dispute the declared value of property by comparing it with the "normal" market value have been removed (Visco-Bersani decreto, introduced during Prodi's government).The ANCE (Associazione Nazionale costruttori Edili) made a formal report to the European Commission as it was shown that this law violated Directive 28 November 2006 no. 2006/112/CE - on value added tax, based on which the taxable basis should be the agreed price, in line with that specified on the invoice and NOT by a statistically pre-set value, such as OMI ( Osservatorio del Mercato Immobiliare) values.Following this report, Italy was ordered to realign its laws with European dispositions.The Decreto legge in question (223/2006, or the Visco-Bersani decreto, converted with amendments to law 248/2006), allowed VAT and income tax declarations to be adjusted if the sale amount deviated from a given normal value for the assets being transfered; in the case of the sale of property financed with a mortgage, the normal value could not be less than the mortgage amount.But according to this article article 35, subparagraph 23-bis of law 248/2006 has been repealed, on the basis of which the normal value of a property could not be less than the mortgage amount for VAT purposes. In short:There used to be a law, introduced by Prodi, which stated that the mortgage amount could NOT be higher than the purchase amount stated in the deed of purchase. If it was, an automatic investigation was triggered and a bill for the presumed evaded tax sent to the vendor (for VAT, if applicable) and the buyer (for purchase registration taxes). They could also compare the declared amount with figures in the OMI (property market observatory database) and if the figures didn't match, they could again send out the tax bill. It was up to the buyer and seller to PROVE that no cash transaction had been made (and how on earth do you do that?) In various forums across the internet I have read about cases where a vendor received a hefty bill where no tax evasion took place simply on the basis of this law.The application of this law would obviously affect the freedom of the parties to set their price, and for the market to naturally rise and fall (for a whole series of reasons, and depending on many different factors, sometimes relating entirely to the individual situation). This law has been found to be in violation of EU directives and has now, thankfully, been repealed.CMJ or anyone else, if I've misunderstood anything regarding this new development please correct me as I haven't had time to study it properly.