The prejudicial question: IRAP as tax with the characteristics of “turnover tax ” in breach of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive. General criticisms concerning the theory of incompatibility of IRAP with the Sixth Directive. Error in perspective: the need for a iure communitatis assessment. The “Community perspective”: prohibition set forth in Article 33 of the Sixth Directive on “living law” of the ECJ. Essential characteristics of VAT subsist in IRAP. “General” application to supplies of goods and services. Application on the net “added value” of goods and services. Application “in each stage” of the production and distribution process. “Proportional” application to the price of goods and services irrespective of the number of transactions. The problem of “serious economic repercussions” of a declaration of incompatibility. The possibility of a temporal limitation of the decision’s effects: restrictive direction of jurisprudence from the ECJ. The possibility of a temporal limitation of the effects: the existence, in the case of IRAP, of the two conditions established in settled case-law. Temporal limitation of the effects of the decision and the Italian taxpayers’ right of refund. What possible solutions to the IRAP problem currently exist?