Important is the passage where the Entity recalls (reasonably) that the transaction, in principle, does not automatically lead to an undue tax advantage and, consequently, cannot be included in the scope of the cases of abuse of law ex art. 10-bis L. 212/2000, however, recalls and highlights that, pursuant to the aforementioned paragraph 2-bis, the holding period required by the PEX regime ex art. 87, undergoes a considerable extension to such an extent that if, as a result of the reorganization, this period is in fact avoided, the transaction would lose its lawfulness in principle.

Subject, as usual, to all the valid extrafiscal reasons necessary for a nonabusive corporate reorganization, as in the case examined by the interpellation.