Incomplete renovation can have consequences that go beyond a halted construction site. If the works have not started, are progressing too slowly, or remain unfinished, the loss of the Superbonus can turn into a contractual issue: who was supposed to do what, by when, and with what effects on the tax benefit? However, merely noting that the tax relief was not obtained is not enough to automatically entitle one to compensation.
I want to help you distinguish situations where the contractor's delay may be relevant from those where the cause of the loss depends on tax or technical requirements, or regulatory changes. We will examine which facts truly link the breach to the damage, how to read the contract and site documents, and what alternatives to consider before leaving the property in an even more difficult situation.
The loss of the Superbonus does not prove the right to compensation on its own
Compensable damage must depend on the contractor's conduct. In a construction contract, the contractor assumes the obligation to execute the agreed works; if they fail to perform the service correctly or punctually and do not prove that the breach depends on a cause not attributable to them, contractual liability may arise pursuant to Article 1218 of the Civil Code. The general reference can be consulted in the Civil Code on Normattiva.
The causal link is the central point. It must be possible to reconstruct that, without the delay, abandonment of the site, or non-compliant execution attributable to the contractor, the works would have been carried out in good time and could have met the conditions of the tax relief. It is not sufficient for the Superbonus to have been mentioned in the estimate, in an advertisement, or in initial conversations.
The name “Superbonus 110%” can refer to very different situations. The contract may have been concluded when the deduction was at 110%, but expenses incurred in a subsequent period could be subject to a different percentage. Article 119 of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2020 provided for different deadlines, rates, and requirements for subjects and interventions; for many cases, the measure went from 110% to 90%, 70%, and 65%. The text of Article 119 of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2020 allows identifying the applicable regime for the expenses considered.
The correct question is not just “did I lose the bonus?”. One must ask what tax advantage was concretely achievable for those works, in that period, and with that documentation. This distinction avoids calculating damages on 110% when, due to date, beneficiary subject, or state of progress, the possible benefit was different or no longer available.
What relief was still obtainable for those works
Dates affect the very existence of damage. As of September 21, 2026, the ordinary Superbonus is not a relief that can be used for new expenses: the disciplines applicable to past events must instead be read according to the moment the expenses were incurred, the type of property, and the subject carrying out the intervention. For certain cases related to territories affected by seismic events, special rules are provided, which cannot be extended to ordinary works.
Expense, works, and requirements do not coincide
An open construction site does not automatically equate to an eligible expense. To reconstruct the loss of the benefit, factors that count include the works actually carried out, documented payments, the building permit, technical certifications, and, when necessary, condominium resolutions. An intervention started but not completed may therefore present a part that is fiscally recognizable and another that never matured the prerequisites.
Technical conditions remain independent of the delay. If the project did not meet the required energy or anti-seismic requirements, if a necessary leading intervention was missing, or if the costs were not congruent, the contractor is not automatically liable for the entire unobtained tax advantage. A different case is when the documentation and project were suitable and the failure to respect contractual deadlines prevented the expense from maturing within the useful deadline.
Invoice discount and credit transfer are not synonymous with deduction
The method of payment changes the practical problem, not eliminates the proof of damage. The invoice discount reduces the consideration owed to the supplier; the transfer instead concerns the transfer of the credit according to applicable rules. Article 121 of Decree-Law No. 34 of 2020 regulates the options and refers to relevant documents, such as invoices, payments, certifications, and enabling permits. You can consult it in the text of Article 121 on Normattiva.
Regulatory changes can interrupt a plan without making the contractor responsible. The rules on transfer and discount options have been restricted over time, with transitional provisions linked to specific conditions matured before the modifications. Decree-Law No. 39 of 2024 further impacted such exceptions and their temporal application: Decree-Law No. 39 of 2024 shows why the mere contractual provision of a discount is not enough to establish that the option was still exercisable.
When site delay or abandonment becomes a breach
The contract establishes the content of the contractor's obligation. An accepted estimate, a construction contract, specifications, or a schedule can indicate works, price, times, states of progress, and consequences of delay. Subsequent communications can also be relevant, but they must be read together with the initial text: a generic promise to “close within the bonus” does not have the same scope as a precise contractual deadline linked to the tax measure.
A delay can be serious even without a date fixed to the day. If the contractor unjustifiably suspends necessary works, fails to procure materials they undertook to supply, does not coordinate indispensable activities, or leaves a decisive phase incomplete, the breach can emerge from the comparison between the promised performance and the work carried out. The judgment is not based solely on the number of days elapsed: the impact of the delay on the project and the real possibility of reaching the tax deadline are relevant.
Not every obstacle is attributable to the contractor. A variation requested by the client, a suspension imposed by an administrative provision, the unavailability of the property, or documents that the owner was required to provide can change the attribution of responsibility. For this reason, it is important to separate the reasons for the site halt: an effective dispute identifies the concrete fact, the date it occurred, and the obligation that was not respected.
Liability can involve different subjects, but with different bases. The contractor is responsible for the execution of the entrusted works. A technician, a director of works, or a professional appointed for certifications can instead be responsible only if they had a specific assignment and conduct linked to the loss of the benefit, for example, a technical error or an omission that rendered an otherwise suitable file unusable. It is not correct to indiscriminately lump roles and responsibilities together.
How damages are determined for the unobtained bonus
Compensation does not automatically coincide with the nominal value of the Superbonus. Articles 1223 et seq. of the Civil Code link damages to the immediate and direct consequences of the breach. In the case of construction works, the higher cost to complete the works, uselessly incurred disbursements, expenses necessary to remedy defects or delays, and, if proven, the lost tax advantage may come into play.
The lost benefit must be calculated on the truly achievable advantage. If the relief would have concerned only certain works or only a part of the expenses, the damage cannot include extraneous works or inadmissible amounts. If the taxpayer could have benefited from a deduction with a lower rate, the comparison must take into account that concrete possibility, not the entire 110% evoked in the contract.
Expenses to complete the site require a transparent comparison. The new executor's estimate can be useful to demonstrate the cost necessary to finish or correct the works, but it must be read with respect to the works already paid for, those already executed, and what remained owed to the first contractor. The same works cannot be obtained twice, nor can any expense savings resulting from the cessation of the first relationship be ignored.
The client's conduct also affects the result. Article 1227 of the Civil Code considers the contributory negligence of the injured party and the consequences that could have been avoided with ordinary diligence. This does not mean that someone who suffers abandonment must solve every problem alone, but it requires not unnecessarily aggravating the damage: letting months pass without contesting, without protecting the property, or without seeking a practicable solution can be relevant in quantification.
Continuing works or terminating the contract: two different choices
The first alternative is to obtain performance, if the work can still be usefully executed. A written communication describing the missing services and requesting an orderly resumption of the works can serve to make the dispute clear and establish a position. If the relationship continues, ambiguous agreements on new prices, new deadlines, or waivers must be avoided: a modification can affect the reconstruction of the initial delay.
The second alternative is to terminate the relationship for breach and entrust the works to others. Termination for breach presupposes that the violation is not of scarce importance with respect to the client's interest; Article 1453 of the Civil Code places this protection alongside the claim for compensation. Terminating the contract can stop the accumulation of delays, but it does not cancel the need to prove that the breach was serious and that the sums requested depend on it.
It is not prudent to replace the contractor without preserving the state of the places. Before the new contractor modifies the works, dated photographs, communications, invoices, estimates, reports, and a technical reconstruction of the executed works help distinguish what the first contractor left incomplete from what was chosen afterwards. Documentation is useful both for continuing and for interrupting the relationship.
An agreement may be preferable if it allows closing a concrete dispute. Restitution of down payments, waiver of unexecuted works, delivery of technical documents, and definition of residual works are aspects that can be regulated without turning every incomplete construction site into a lawsuit. However, the agreement must clearly state which claims remain open and which are settled; a generic formula can create new doubts rather than resolve them.
What documents truly clarify the problem
Documents that unite the contract, the construction site, and the tax relief are needed. The contract or accepted estimate clarifies the works and the price; the specifications and metric calculation show which works were included; the schedule, if it exists, helps interpret the times. Invoices, bank transfers, and states of progress instead link the amounts to the works actually paid for.
The tax and technical part is not an accessory detail. CILA or other building permits, certifications, attestations, condominium resolutions, communications, and documents relating to visa, discount, or transfer can explain if the benefit was concretely achievable. It is not necessary to accumulate irrelevant paperwork: what counts is reconstructing the passage that made it impossible to obtain the tax relief or forced bearing a higher cost.
Written communications can fix the causes of the delay. Messages, emails, and certified emails (PEC) are useful when they indicate suspensions, requests for variations, missing materials, disputes, or new deadlines. If one party attributes the halt to another, the response given at that time can be more significant than a subsequent reconstruction. You can contact me if you need to frame these elements before choosing whether to proceed, contest, or close the contract.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I claim 110% from the contractor if the works have not been completed?
You can claim compensation only for demonstrable damage. You must be able to link the failure to complete the work to the loss of a tax relief that was concretely achievable. The amount does not always coincide with 110%: it depends on the applicable rate, eligible expenses, technical requirements, and conditions that had already matured before the delay.
Is the estimate with the wording “Superbonus 110%” enough to contest the contractor?
No, the wording alone is not enough. It is necessary to read which works were agreed upon, what times were provided, and whether the document truly committed the contractor to achieving a fiscal result. A generic formula can describe the context of the intervention, while a precise clause on times, documentation, or discount can have a different weight.
Can I immediately entrust the works to a new contractor?
You can do so, but it is advisable to preserve evidence first. Photographs, reports, invoices, metric calculations, communications, and a technical description of the residual works help avoid discussions on what was executed by the first contractor. Replacement does not exclude a subsequent dispute, but it can make it more difficult to reconstruct the damage if the site is modified without documentation.
Is the loss of the invoice discount always the contractor's fault?
No, it depends on the conditions provided by the contract and the law. Restrictions on discount and transfer options provided for exceptions and transitional provisions. It must therefore be established whether the option was still exercisable and whether the contractor's conduct caused the loss of a pre-existing concrete possibility, or whether the regulatory change would have prevented the operation anyway.
Can I claim the restitution of down payments in addition to compensation?
Restitution and compensation are different items. If the contract is terminated for a relevant breach, the issue of returning sums paid for unexecuted works may arise. Compensation instead concerns further proven damaging consequences, such as the higher cost to complete the works or, in well-founded cases, the loss of a tax advantage.