E-commerce, here's when the web tax has to be paid (and when not). So the refund may arrive

Yes to the application when there is an intermediation. No when it is a direct transfer to the customer, even if with the formula of a sales account. In what is - as it turns out - one of the first pronouncements of tax judges on the Italian web tax (the digital service tax applied on 3% of revenues) comes a delimitation of when the levy is or is not triggered, with the recognition also of the right to reimbursement if what was paid was not due. The issue was at the centre of sentence 292/1/2026 of the Court of Fiscal Justice (CJT) of Milan (president Chindemi, rapporteur Pavone), which upheld the appeal of a company operating in the internet sales of clothing, fashion and design goods against the Revenue Agency's silent refusal on a refund of over EUR 1 million for the web tax paid in 2020, 2021 and 2022.

In the case that came before the tax courts, the company in question had carried out a dual type of activity. One of intermediation according to the marketplace and sales commission model, in which the end customer interacts with the sellers and the company earns a commission for its intermediation. Another one of direct sales to customers, through consignment contracts: in practice, the suppliers delivered the goods to the company but did not immediately become the owner because, only after the final customer's purchase order, did the plaintiff company proceed to purchase the goods and communicate to the customer the acceptance of the purchase proposal, thus concluding the sales contract.

In the first case, it is not in dispute that the web tax applies. In the second, on the other hand, the appellant company, although having paid it, had then considered that it was not due and therefore requested a refund. An interpretation that the tax judges accepted, reconstructing the Italian web tax discipline (contained in Article 1, paragraphs 35-50, of Law 145/2018).

Precisely according to the rule, the ruling recalls that the levy applies to revenues derived from the 'provision of a multilateral digital interface that enables users to be in contact and interact with each other, including for the purpose of facilitating the direct supply of goods or services'. In fact, when the company earns a commission from the intermediation offered through the marketplace model, the levy is triggered.

The discourse, on the other hand, changes radically when there is a direct transfer to customers, even if with a coto-sale contract. In this case, the judges point out, the digital tax on services 'is not due for the obvious absence of a "provision of a multilateral digital interface enabling users to be in contact and interact with each other, also for the purpose of facilitating the direct supply of goods or services" and for the non-brokerage role played by the appellant in the sales in question'.