Courtesy of Heidi Widmer
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Heidi Widmer. It has been edited for length and clarity.
In July, I moved into an apartment in Los Angeles, exhausted from a six-day drive across the country from New York. All I wanted to do was get into the apartment and sleep, and luckily, my bed had been delivered on the same day I arrived.
Trying to fall asleep at 2 a.m., all I could hear was a loud noise coming from the apartment upstairs. It sounded as if someone was bowling. Although I was tempted to shout for them to be quiet, I held my tongue — I was the new neighbor and didn't want to be difficult.
But the noise just didn't seem to stop. Whoever lived up there also never came downstairs. Who lives up there? I thought to myself.
Two weeks after moving in, I heard someone coming down the stairs and had to get a glimpse of who lived above me.
Peeking out of my door, I saw Carole for the first time, slowly making her way down the stairs, shaking badly from what was clearly Parkinson's, and trying to carry a bunch of bags full of recycling.
Just as I was about to open the door to see if she needed help, she dropped all the bags with only a couple of steps left. I burst out of my apartment to help her.
"Oh my gosh, thank you," she said in her sweet British accent. "Did you just move in? Am I too loud for you?"
In that moment, I felt totally and completely humbled.
Having grown up in the Catholic church, I was taught never to judge a book by its cover, and with Carole, I hadn't even seen the cover. I judged her simply by the noise she produced upstairs. How could I be so judgmental?
It turns out that sound had been Carole rolling a three-wheeled, broken chair across her floor to get to her mini fridge — the mini fridge social services had given her when her refrigerator broke. She had to hoist herself out of her broken chair to get down and access the mini fridge.
That was the noise.
Two days after we met, I knocked on her door. She peeked through and nervously let me in. The conditions inside weren't great.
Although she can live independently, she just needs a little help. I later learned that she doesn't like accepting help from people, especially social services. The fact that she is frightened of the very people meant to help her breaks my heart.
That day, I took all of her trash out for her, reassuring her I wasn't judging her at all.
Courtesy of Heidi Widmer
In the weeks and now months that have followed, I have been up to Carole's to help with the trash, cooking (she'd only been having microwave meals), cleaning, and contacting the landlord to get him to replace and repair items in the apartment. We've decorated her apartment, too.
Together, we made her an Amazon wish list, and I shared it on social media so that people could order things she needs and have them delivered directly to her. People have been so generous, purchasing things like an expensive Buddhist "butsudan" that Carole didn't expect anyone to buy.
Courtesy of Heidi Widmer
We set up a GoFundMe, which has raised about $80,000, and we plan to use the funds to have a stair lift installed for her. Any leftover money will be spent on in-home care as she continues to age and her Parkinson's Disease progresses.
I know I've been helpful to Carole in these last few months, but she's been the perfect person at the perfect time for me, too. Moving to LA, I had hardly any connections. Lots of Carole's family members are either no longer living or back in the UK (she moved here in her 20s as an au pair).
Carole became the family I haven't had, and I became hers. We text back and forth each day, and I see her most days. She calls me granddaughter, and I see her as my grandmother.
When I've had a hard day at work teaching at a local middle school, Carole is ready to give me a big hug when I get home. She's been my safe space, and I've been hers. The universe knew we needed each other.
It's an unlikely connection, but it shows that when you lead with kindness rather than judgment, the person you were ready to judge can become someone you can't imagine your life without.
Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate begins Sunday on Band as both candidates clash over Brazil’s future one week before the October 25 runoff.
Related: Lula Signs Constitutional Amendment Reducing Brazil’s Workweek to 40 Hours
The Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate takes place Sunday in São Paulo as Brazil’s presidential runoff enters its final week.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro will meet for the first time in a televised debate promoted by the Band television network.
The encounter is considered a crucial moment in the campaign, which will conclude with the runoff election on October 25.
The debate will be broadcast live from Band’s studios in São Paulo beginning at 8:00 p.m. Brasília time. It is expected to last approximately two hours.
The program will be transmitted through a media pool that includes Band, TV Gazeta, TV Cultura, Jovem Pan and the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo.
The debate will also be available through BandNews TV, BandNews FM, Bandeirantes radio, Band’s YouTube channel, Band’s website and the BandPlay platform.
The two candidates have avoided a direct confrontation throughout the first round. Their decision to participate in Sunday’s debate therefore marks a significant change in campaign strategy.
During the first round, Lula chose not to participate in televised debates. Instead, he gave interviews to TV Record and the Flow podcast at times that coincided with other candidates’ debate appearances.
Flávio Bolsonaro, meanwhile, had conditioned his participation on Lula’s presence. As a result, the two candidates avoided facing each other directly during the first-round campaign.
The situation changed after both candidates advanced to the runoff. Lula said that debates had become more important because the contest is now one-on-one.
“Now it is important to have television debates, because now it is face to face, now it is one against one,” Lula said.
Flávio Bolsonaro also changed his position after Lula confirmed his attendance. The senator had initially rejected the invitation but later said he would participate.
He publicly challenged Lula on social media, saying that the president had agreed to attend only after Bolsonaro said he would not participate.
“Lula, you are so predictable, aren’t you? As soon as I said I would not go to the debate, the next minute you said you would go. Of course I’m going, I just wanted you to confirm it,” Bolsonaro wrote.
The exchange reflects the high level of tension between the two campaigns as Brazil approaches a closely contested runoff.
Band presidential debate rules | Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court
The Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate will include three main blocks.
The first and third blocks will begin with questions from journalists. The candidates will then have time for direct exchanges, allowing them to question one another, respond to criticism and offer rebuttals.
The second block will also include direct confrontation between the two candidates.
The format gives each candidate freedom to manage their speaking time during the direct exchanges. They may move around the studio, ask questions and respond to their opponent without following a fixed timetable for every intervention.
The format is designed to encourage direct confrontation rather than limiting the candidates to short scripted responses.
Band’s anchors Eduardo Oinegue and Adriana Araújo will moderate the debate and ask questions on behalf of the network.
The questions are expected to cover major policy issues, including the economy, health care, education, public security and social programs.
The candidates will also deliver opening statements and closing remarks. Those moments will allow them to present their main proposals and make direct appeals for votes.
A draw determined the order of responses and the candidates’ positions on stage. Flávio Bolsonaro will stand on the left side of the studio, while Lula will occupy the right side.
The debate will provide the first opportunity for viewers to compare the candidates’ personalities, arguments and responses under pressure.
The encounter is especially important because recent polls have shown a narrowing gap between the two candidates.
A Datafolha survey published on October 10 gave Lula 50 percent of valid votes in a runoff scenario, compared with 50 percent for Flávio Bolsonaro. The result indicated a technical tie.
A Quaest poll published on October 15 showed a similar result, with Lula receiving 49 percent and Bolsonaro 51 percent among valid votes. The difference was within the survey’s margin of error.
Those figures mean that the debate could influence undecided voters and those who may still change their minds.
The candidates will seek to define the terms of the campaign. Lula is expected to defend his government’s economic record, social programs and international diplomacy.
Flávio Bolsonaro is expected to criticize inflation, crime, public spending and the performance of the Workers’ Party government.
The debate may also address Brazil’s international relations, including its position on the war in the Middle East, relations with the United States and cooperation with Latin American countries.
The candidates’ contrasting visions of Brazil are likely to become a central issue. Lula represents a progressive project based on social inclusion, public investment and multilateral diplomacy.
Flávio Bolsonaro represents a conservative project that emphasizes public security, lower taxes, reduced state intervention and closer alignment with right-wing forces.
TV Globo election coverage | Reuters coverage of Brazil’s election
Attention will quickly turn to the second Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate, scheduled for October 23 on TV Globo.
The final debate will take place in Rio de Janeiro, two days before the runoff vote.
TV Globo is Brazil’s largest television network, and the debate is expected to reach a much larger audience than the Band encounter.
The program will be moderated by journalist César Tralli and broadcast after the network’s main evening news program, Jornal Nacional.
The debate will also be transmitted simultaneously by GloboNews and the G1 news portal. Viewers will be able to follow the event through TV Globo, GloboNews, G1 and Globoplay.
The Globo debate is expected to be the last major televised confrontation before Brazilians vote on October 25.
Both campaigns are still evaluating their final participation, although the event has been formally scheduled by the network.
The debate could be decisive if the race remains close. Candidates may use the final encounter to address undecided voters and reinforce their core messages.
The runoff campaign has been marked by intense mobilization in the streets, social media disputes and accusations between the two camps.
Lula’s supporters have accused Meta platforms of censoring accounts linked to the president, while Bolsonaro’s campaign has promoted claims of government bias and economic mismanagement.
The accusations have increased tensions and made the debates even more important as a space for direct confrontation.
The first-round campaign was marked by a lack of direct debates among the leading candidates. The runoff has changed that dynamic because the election is now limited to two contenders.
The debates give voters a clearer opportunity to evaluate each candidate’s proposals and responses to criticism.
They also allow candidates to correct false statements, challenge their opponents’ records and present their plans for government.
The outcome of the runoff will determine Brazil’s political direction for the next four years. It will also influence the country’s economic policy, environmental agenda and international relations.
The Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate has implications beyond Brazil because the country is Latin America’s largest economy and a major global agricultural producer.
The election will affect Brazil’s approach to climate policy, the Amazon, trade, regional integration and relations with China, the United States and the European Union.
Lula has promoted a more active role for Brazil in multilateral institutions and has sought closer ties with countries in the Global South.
His government has emphasized cooperation with China, support for regional integration and a diplomatic approach to international conflicts.
Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign is associated with a more conservative foreign-policy orientation and closer alignment with right-wing governments and movements.
The election will therefore influence debates over Brazil’s role in the world and its relationship with the United States.
The runoff is also taking place amid heightened political polarization. The two campaigns represent competing visions of Brazil’s democracy, economy and social model.
Lula’s supporters see the election as an opportunity to preserve social programs and protect democratic institutions.
Flávio Bolsonaro’s supporters argue that Brazil needs a change in direction to address crime, inflation and economic stagnation.
The debates will provide voters with a final opportunity to compare those visions before casting their ballots.
The first debate on Band and the final encounter on TV Globo could play a decisive role in determining who will govern Brazil after October 25.
Os cremes, produtos de maquilhagem, perfumes, protetores solares e outros cosméticos também têm uma palavra a dizer no mercado das fusões e aquisições. O crescente interesse pelos cuidados de pele e a massificação no Ocidente das rotinas de beleza sul-coreanas - a chamada k-beauty - está a materializar-se em mais negócios entre as grandes marcas, que procuram dimensão e especialização.
O índice transacional da BeautyMatter registou 73 transações neste setor durante o segundo trimestre, o que significou um aumento homólogo de 21,9%, incluindo M&A e investimentos em expansão. Entre janeiro e março,…
Assine o ECO Premium e continue a ler esta e todas as notícias exclusivas, sem limites.
Já é assinante? Iniciar sessão
Ver todos os planosCourtesy of Alona Vasylieva
When my husband and I bought our apartment in Kyiv back in 2017, we were thrilled to finally have a family nest of our own.
It was a cozy, 500-square-foot place with one bedroom, and we meticulously planned to optimize every inch of it. Our kitchen table doubled as my workspace, and our living room couch became the guest bed whenever family stayed over.
Hosting required pure creative problem-solving and, with limited seating around our small table, I'd sometimes feed guests in shifts. It was chaotic at times, but I didn't mind.
After our son was born, bright plastic toys, endless boxes of diapers, and bulky baby gear started claiming every free corner of our apartment. With the three of us packed into a single bedroom, finding space was a daily puzzle, but we made it work.
Surprisingly, living so close together didn't feel limited back then — it felt intimate, cozy, and deeply fulfilling. Then COVID-19 hit.
Spending so much time indoors made me feel isolated, and for the first time, I began dreaming about more living space. But we barely had time to figure things out before life took a drastic turn: When the war in Ukraine escalated in 2022, we made the heavy, life-changing decision to relocate to Canada.
A few months after moving, we began renting a two-bedroom house, where we currently reside. At 1,700 square feet, it wasn't considered especially large by local standards, but to us, it felt vast.
Courtesy of Alona Vasylieva
At first, our house seemed almost too large for just three people.
For the first time, we had two bedrooms and a basement, which instantly doubled our usable space at a ground level.
After years of apartment living, though, the sheer thought of having so much space to keep clean felt exhausting. However, it didn't take long to change my mind.
It turns out that when both you and your belongings finally have room to breathe — and you've got a trusty robot vacuum doing the heavy lifting — life shines in completely different colors.
Courtesy of Alona Vasylieva
It's also been wonderful to have more room to host, from a dedicated guest space (in the basement) to a table big enough to actually seat larger groups.
In time, we began to pick up local habits and traditions, too. Many of our neighbors in Canada decorate for different holidays, so we started joining in.
And of course, seasonal decor needs a place to be stored when it's not in use — and since we now had a full basement, I didn't feel super limited with what I could buy.
A lot of neighbors also had an extra stand-alone freezer in their homes. It seemed ridiculous for our family of three to also get one … until my first Costco run.
I caved when I realized I needed a place for all those bulk-sized boxes of frozen food. In our bigger home, large grocery hauls began feeling normal.
Courtesy of Alona Vasylieva
Gradually, I felt a shift in my identity: I was no longer the strict minimalist I used to be.
In Kyiv, whenever my husband wanted a new kitchen gadget or a giant toy truck for our son, I was firm about saying no. We simply didn't have room for "extra." I took pride in keeping our home completely clutter-free.
But between the extra space and North American convenience, I'd completely changed my minimalist rules. Now, saying "yes" to big additions — like the bulky food dehydrator I'd been eyeing for drying fruits and vegetables, or the roomy couch we'd dreamed of for years — felt easy.
I didn't need to worry about where something would be stored or if it'd take up too much space: We finally had the room to bring those dreams home.
Courtesy of Alona Vasylieva
Over time, I realized this shift was much deeper than just being able to shop more and store more stuff. In a bigger space, our family had room to breathe and grow.
In Kyiv, our whole routine and my minimalist mindset felt shaped by how tight everything felt, but here, the extra room opened up a whole new chapter.
I've become more outgoing, more relaxed, and genuinely excited to gather people together. Our home has turned into a place for hosting friends, cooking weekend dinners, and laughing over backyard barbecues.
Living small was a beautiful, intimate part of my life that I will always hold close to my heart. It taught me intentionality and gratitude.
However, creating space to thrive, host, and watch my family grow has completely transformed my definition of home — now, going back to 500 square feet no longer feels like an option.
Courtesy of Andrew Koller
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Andrew Koller, 31, a freelance camera operator who purchased a home in Yamagata, Japan, in March. Koller, who's based in Edmonton, Canada, renovated the home and plans to use it as a vacation home. The following has been edited for length and clarity.
Like a lot of millennials, I was exposed to Japanese culture in some sense early on with "Naruto," "Pokemon," and "Dragon Ball Z." After that, I don't think my interest really left.
Come 2020, I had a bunch of time on my hands like everybody else. It seemed like a good time to finally learn Japanese. I've been learning Japanese with a private tutor since then.
Then, in 2023, I made my first trip to Japan.
Like everybody else who comes back from their first trip to Japan, I just fell in love. I couldn't stop talking about it, but I wanted a deeper connection to the community.
Courtesy of Andrew Koller
I wanted more than just the superficial, surface-level experience of Japanese life. So I thought maybe a good way to get that experience would be to buy a house that's not in a major tourist city, somewhat live there, and spend a good chunk of time over there getting involved with the community by renovating a forgotten property.
The algorithm was watching for sure. After my first Japan trip, my YouTube and Instagram algorithms were suggesting to me all these similar people doing similar things.
From that, I was like, this seems like something I can do. In my free time, I like to DIY. I have a little workshop — I wouldn't say I'm good at it, but I feel like I know enough to do the basics.
I'm at the point in my life now where I've had all these ideas and I've said, "Oh, it'd be cool to do this," but I never do it. I never follow through. I just wanted to prove to myself that I actually followed through on one of these somewhat whimsical ideas.
I've always been interested in real estate since a young age.
Purchasing your first house is doable, but if you want to purchase a second house after that, like a rental, it's extremely challenging to do that in Canada. Canada's housing market has exploded, especially in Alberta.
I'm in a very fortunate position where my partner and I own a house and we own a rental property as well close to the university area.
I bought the rental house when I was 20 with my parents — they had to sign on because no bank was going to loan a 20-year-old kid a mortgage. I rented out the rooms and then I lived for free for my time in college.
Courtesy of Andrew Koller
Both houses have a similar value. My primary residence is worth just under $600,000 CAD (about $422,880). When we bought the rental 10 years ago, it was around $500,000 CAD, but it's gone up since.
For my home in Japan, I spent $15,000 CAD (about $10,600) on the purchase price plus closing costs, which was another $3,000 CAD.
I can definitely see myself spending extended time in Japan.
I want to go out there at least a few times a year. It's close to a pretty big ski resort, and I snowboard.
Doing the math for that, if I was to go stay in Banff or Jasper — one of the more popular mountain towns in Alberta — for a week and ski, it's actually cheaper to fly to Japan, because the skiing is also very affordable, so that was a big factor for me.
I went to Japan in October 2025 to look at properties. I made an offer in November, it got accepted, and then I got possession of the property in March 2026. Then I went up for the entire month of April to start renovations on it.
I wanted to respect what was already there when I went in. Even though the house itself wasn't ancient or historical — it was built in the '60s or '70s — it was very traditionally built with the Tatami rooms. I wanted to keep a lot of that, coming in as a Westerner.
I wanted to try and adapt to their way of life rather than trying to impose my own. I just wanted to complement what was already there.
Courtesy of Andrew Koller
Now, the house is 98% done.
The actual renovation costs right now are just over the purchase cost. So I'm at around $18,000 CAD and change, doing most of it myself.
Right now, the goal would be to do a short-term rental in the future, but I don't plan on it making a lot of money.
I think that's the one thing people will get confused about. They think, "If I do this and renovate it, I can make a ton of money off a short-term rental in Japan." That's not the case, because there's so much competition with the hotels there that are already amazing and very affordable.
Courtesy of Andrew Koller
I just want to cover the maintenance costs more than anything. Doing a little bit of short-term rental, I think, will help with that.
It's not an asset. I think maybe people go to Japan with the Western mindset, like, "Oh, it's a buy-and-hold asset." Outside of Tokyo and the big cities, real estate doesn't do that.
Real estate always goes down in value over time. If you're buying a house in Japan, go in with the expectation that it's not as much of a financial asset as it is a recreation: you'll get more of a cultural experience.
For decades, the European Union has been a global leader in biodiversity protection. The Natura 2000 network, the Birds and Habitats Directives and, more recently, the Nature Restoration Regulation show that Europe has a strong legal framework.
At international level, the EU also played a decisive role in the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was agreed in December 2022 at COP15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The framework established a global roadmap to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
Next week (19-30 October), Yerevan will host COP17 of the Convention, where the first global review of progress since the adoption of the Framework will take place. It will be an important opportunity to determine whether the commitments made are being translated into concrete action and results on the ground.
As co-chair of the European Parliament delegation attending the conference, I will defend a united European position that is consistent with our historic leadership and responds to the urgency of the challenge.
The European Commission, which formally negotiates on behalf of the Union on the basis of the position agreed with the member states, must promote decisions that accelerate implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework during the remaining years to 2030.
This global review must be accompanied by an honest assessment of our own performance. Europe should arrive in Yerevan acknowledging both the progress it has made and the work that remains.
The commission’s latest report on the implementation of the framework presents a mixed picture.
Of the 45 targets established for the EU, only two have been achieved and 16 are on track, while progress remains too slow on another 25 and two cannot yet be assessed.
There are positive signs in the EU. Protected areas have expanded, organic farming has increased and a greater proportion of fish stocks is being managed sustainably.
However, the overall situation of many habitats and species remains worrying, while farmland birds and grassland butterflies, among others, continue to decline.
The main problem is not a lack of legislation, as Europe already has many of the instruments it needs. The challenge is to implement them properly and turn them into visible improvements on the ground, which requires public authorities with sufficient capacity, reliable data, clear plans and stable funding.
The Nature Restoration Regulation is a good example.
Restoring wetlands, rivers, forests, soils and marine ecosystems will not only help biodiversity recover, but will also retain water, reduce flood damage, protect soils and make our territories more resilient to droughts, heatwaves and wildfires.
However, the regulation will only deliver results if member states meet their obligations.
The deadline for submitting draft national restoration plans was 1 September, yet only nine countries have done so.
This delay not only slows implementation, but also makes it harder to calculate the cost of restoring nature and the resources that will be required.
The commission was expected to present an assessment of restoration funding needs and gaps in August 2025, but we are still waiting for a complete analysis.
The commission argues that it needs the national plans to calculate these costs. Yet negotiations on the 2028-2034 financial framework are moving forward while many plans remain outstanding and we still lack a full estimate of the resources needed to implement one of our most important environmental laws.
This situation reflects one of the main challenges facing COP17.
Adopting targets is no longer enough. We must also agree on how they will be implemented, how progress will be measured and how action will be financed.
In this context, I believe that the European position should focus on five priorities. We must mobilise more resources for biodiversity, consolidate the Cali Fund, make progress in eliminating harmful subsidies, assess progress through concrete results and strengthen the role of nature in climate adaptation.
Finance will be one of the central issues in Yerevan, as the Global Biodiversity Framework calls for the mobilisation of at least $200bn [€178bn] a year from all sources by 2030. Public investment must remain the foundation of this effort, but private capital will also be needed.
With this aim, the commission presented its roadmap for nature credits in July 2025 and is now developing the methodologies, certification systems, oversight arrangements and pilot projects needed for their deployment.
These instruments could help finance conservation and restoration, but they will only be useful if they are governed by rigorous rules and deliver real, verifiable and additional benefits for biodiversity. They must never replace public funding or be used to justify damage to nature in one place in exchange for financing action elsewhere.
COP17 must also consolidate the Cali Fund, which was created so that companies benefiting from the use of digital information on genetic resources contribute to biodiversity conservation. The agreement reached at COP16 was an important step, but we now need real contributions and a fair distribution of resources, including for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Another priority must be to eliminate incentives and subsidies that harm biodiversity. It makes no sense to call for new resources to protect nature while public budgets continue to support activities that destroy it.
The European Union should therefore examine its own policies honestly, particularly in areas such as agriculture, fisheries, energy and infrastructure, and establish a timetable for progressively phasing out and ultimately eliminating this harmful support.
The global review must also measure concrete results. Success cannot be assessed simply by counting strategies or setting targets. We need to know whether ecosystems are recovering, whether species are in better condition, whether protected areas are being managed effectively and whether funding is actually reaching action on the ground.
We must also strengthen the connection between biodiversity and climate adaptation. The droughts, floods, heatwaves and wildfires affecting Europe show that protecting and restoring nature is not a secondary concern. Healthy ecosystems are among our best defences against the effects of climate change and represent a direct investment in our security, agriculture and economy.
All these priorities lead us inevitably to the European budget, because political commitments are only credible when they are backed by sufficient resources.
There is currently a clear contradiction between the leadership that the European Union wishes to maintain on biodiversity and the place given to it in the proposal for the 2028-2034 financial framework.
Although the commission proposes that 35 percent of the next budget should contribute jointly to climate and environmental objectives, it removes the specific 10 percent target for biodiversity included in the current budget and no longer presents LIFE as a standalone programme.
By placing biodiversity within much broader objectives and funds, its financing becomes less visible and risks being pushed aside by priorities such as security, defence and competitiveness.
Parliament must defend sufficient and clearly identifiable resources for biodiversity and for the activities currently financed through LIFE.
Simplification can make funding easier to access, but it must not reduce environmental ambition, transparency or democratic oversight.
This budget debate also affects our international credibility. Europe cannot ask other countries to increase their ambition and financial contributions while weakening budgetary support for biodiversity within the Union itself. Our leadership in Yerevan will depend not only on what we defend in the negotiations, but also on what we are able to implement and finance at home.
Europe has strong laws, valuable experience and the capacity to lead. We do not need to start again. We need to deliver what we have already agreed, provide the necessary resources and use COP17 to accelerate global action.
The global review cannot be limited to describing how far we remain from the 2030 targets. It must help us agree on how to close that gap during the four years that remain. I will travel to Yerevan with the European Parliament delegation determined to support that objective.
La seconda metà di ottobre 2026 porta con sé alcuni appuntamenti fiscali da tenere sotto controllo, soprattutto per le imprese e per i contribuenti che devono correggere la dichiarazione dei redditi già presentata. Per organizzare correttamente gli adempimenti, però, è importante tenere conto delle scadenze che coincidono con la domenica (e che ovviamente slittano).
Il primo appuntamento da ricordare è quello di martedì 20 ottobre 2026 e riguarda le imprese elettriche che devono trasmettere all’Agenzia delle Entrate i dati relativi al canone Tv addebitato, accreditato, riscosso e riversato nel mese di settembre. Si tratta di una scadenza di natura prevalentemente amministrativa, che non comporta versamenti diretti da parte dei cittadini ma riguarda specificamente le società di fornitura dell’energia elettrica.
La comunicazione:
L’invio deve essere effettuato esclusivamente in modalità telematica, utilizzando i servizi Entratel o Fisconline dell’AdE. Le imprese possono procedere direttamente oppure affidare la trasmissione a un intermediario abilitato, nel rispetto delle procedure previste.
Un altro appuntamento riguarda gli elenchi Intrastat, che devono essere presentati entro lunedì 26 ottobre 2026 per le operazioni intracomunitarie. Il termine ordinario del 25 ottobre cade di domenica nel 2026. Per questo motivo, la scadenza viene spostata al primo giorno lavorativo successivo.
L’adempimento:
Nel mese ottobre, sono tenuti all’invio gli operatori:
L’invio degli elenchi deve avvenire secondo le modalità telematiche previste dall’Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli.
Lunedì 26 ottobre 2026 è anche il termine per presentare il modello 730 integrativo relativo alla dichiarazione dei redditi 2026, riferita al periodo d’imposta 2025.
Questo adempimento, tuttavia:
Non è invece lo strumento da utilizzare se la correzione comporta un risultato fiscale diverso in senso sfavorevole al contribuente. In questo caso, infatti, occorre valutare la procedura dichiarativa appropriata.
La presentazione deve essere effettuata rivolgendosi a un Caf o a un professionista abilitato. Questo vale anche quando il contribuente si era avvalso inizialmente dell’assistenza fiscale del proprio sostituto d’imposta.
Ogni anno, con l’arrivo dei mesi estivi e autunnali, milioni di lavoratori dipendenti e pensionati attendono con ansia l’accredito delle somme a credito derivanti dalla dichiarazione dei redditi. Tuttavia, non è raro trovarsi di fronte a una brutta sorpresa: un importo accreditato in busta paga o sul cedolino della pensione inferiore alle aspettative, oppure il blocco totale della cifra attesa.
Quando il credito atteso viene ridotto o congelato, la prima reazione del contribuente è dare la colpa dell’errore al datore di lavoro o al centro di assistenza fiscale (Caf). Nella maggior parte dei casi, tuttavia, la spiegazione risiede in complessi meccanismi normativi, vincoli di bilancio aziendali o rigidi filtri informatici preventivi attivati dall’amministrazione finanziaria.
Vediamo quali sono i motivi tecnici e amministrativi che spiegano perché il rimborso 730 non è stato erogato per intero e, soprattutto, come interpretare le comunicazioni dell’Agenzia delle Entrate.
Una delle cause principali che bloccano la liquidazione di un rimborso 730 risiede nell’evoluzione tecnologica dei controlli fiscali, passati da una verifica formale effettuata a distanza di anni a un vero e proprio filtro preventivo automatizzato. Ai sensi dell’articolo 5 del Decreto Legislativo n. 175/2014, l’Agenzia delle Entrate effettua una verifica preventiva sulla dichiarazione quando il credito d’imposta spettante è superiore alla soglia di 4.000 euro e, contemporaneamente, sono presenti modifiche o integrazioni rispetto alla precompilata che incidono sulla determinazione del reddito. Lo stesso blocco scatta in presenza di elementi di incoerenza rispetto ai criteri definiti dall’Anagrafe Tributaria, come le incongruenze tra le detrazioni per ristrutturazioni, i bonus edilizi o le spese sanitarie e i dati trasmessi dagli enti terzi.
In presenza di questi presupposti si verifica un passaggio tecnico fondamentale: l’Agenzia delle Entrate esautora completamente il sostituto d’imposta, sia esso azienda o ente pensionistico. Ciò significa che l’amministrazione finanziaria non invia al datore di lavoro alcun prospetto di liquidazione (Modello 730-4). Di conseguenza, il datore di lavoro non farà passare quella somma nel cedolino paga, né per intero né ridotta. La pratica si sposta sui sistemi informatici dell’Agenzia delle Entrate, che effettua le verifiche documentali entro quattro mesi dalla scadenza dei termini di trasmissione. Soltanto al termine dell’istruttoria il Fisco provvederà a erogare il rimborso spettante direttamente sul conto corrente bancario o postale indicato via Iban, entro il sesto mese successivo alla scadenza.
Diverso è il caso in cui la dichiarazione non presenti anomalie bloccanti per il Fisco, ma l’importo percepito in busta paga risulti comunque parziale. In questa circostanza la causa è la cosiddetta incapienza del sostituto d’imposta.
Il datore di lavoro anticipa il rimborso 730 per conto dello Stato utilizzando il monte delle ritenute Irpef che trattiene mensilmente sugli stipendi di tutti i dipendenti in organico. Se in un determinato mese le ritenute Irpef complessive versate dall’azienda sono inferiori alla somma totale dei rimborsi richiesti dai lavoratori, l’azienda non possiede la capienza finanziaria per soddisfare subito l’intero credito.
La legge impone in questo caso al datore di lavoro di distribuire la capienza disponibile proporzionalmente tra tutti i dipendenti aventi diritto. Le quote residue non vengono perse, ma erogate a rate nei cedolini dei mesi successivi (di norma entro la fine dell’anno fiscale, tra agosto e novembre). Non si tratta quindi di un taglio definitivo, ma di un differimento temporaneo della liquidità.
Un ulteriore fattore di riduzione del credito atteso riguarda la presenza di pendenze con il Fisco. In base all’articolo 28-ter del D.P.R. n. 600/1973, prima di procedere all’erogazione diretta di un rimborso 730, l’Agenzia delle Entrate effettua un controllo incrociato con l’agente della riscossione.
Se a carico del beneficiario risultano cartelle esattoriali, avvisi di addebito o debiti iscritti a ruolo non saldati di importo pari o superiore a 500 euro, scatta la procedura di compensazione coattiva:
In molti casi il taglio del rimborso deriva da un errore di valutazione nell’incidenza delle detrazioni fiscali. Le detrazioni d’imposta servono ad abbattere l’Irpef lorda calcolata sui redditi percepiti.
Tuttavia, secondo le regole fondamentali del nostro sistema fiscale, l’ammontare delle detrazioni non può mai superare l’imposta lorda effettivamente dovuta. Se un contribuente ha versato 1.200 euro di Irpef lorda nell’anno di riferimento, non potrà mai ottenere un rimborso 730 superiore a 1.200 euro, anche se ha sostenuto 4.000 euro di spese detraibili. La parte di detrazione che supera l’imposta dovuta va persa (fenomeno dell’incapienza d’imposta) e non genera alcun credito rimborsabile né trasferibile agli anni futuri.
Quando l’erogazione del rimborso 730 deve avvenire direttamente da parte dell’Agenzia delle Entrate sul conto corrente del cittadino, la transazione può fallire per motivazioni formali o tecniche legate al pagamento:
In questo caso il credito non viene annullato, ma rimane congelato nei sistemi dell’Agenzia delle Entrate fino alla correzione dei dati bancari nell’area riservata o fino all’emissione di un titolo di pagamento alternativo.
Per individuare con certezza la motivazione che ha determinato la riduzione o il mancato arrivo del rimborso 730, si consiglia di seguire questi passaggi:
Comprendere la causa esatta dell’anomalia è indispensabile per attivare tempestivamente le contromisure necessarie: dall’invio della documentazione per sbloccare i controlli preventivi, fino alla semplice attesa dei conguagli rateali nelle buste paga successive.
Login