Ecobonus, data to Enea Cassation under pressure

No longer isolated pronouncements, but a jurisprudential line that is gaining momentum. The message coming from the Supreme Court of Cassation, with Ordinances 12422 and 12426 filed on 10 May, is clear: omissions and delays in sending the Enea communication that is connected to the ecobonus must not be considered relevant for the possible forfeiture of the tax discount. The policy always confirmed, in recent years, by the Revenue Agency is, thus, heavily questioned. Especially since there are now four pronouncements going in this direction.

This interpretation started from the sentence of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. 7657/2024: here it was explained that the legislation does not allow the term of 90 days to be considered peremptory, since the Enea communication has 'essentially statistical' purposes. Ordinance 8019/2025 confirmed and reinforced that orientation. Maintaining that 'the obligation to transmit to ENEA the data relating to the works carried out is not expressly linked to any deadline, which, on the contrary, must be inferred at least through systematic interpretation of the primary and secondary legislation'.

Now two ordinances filed on the same day take the same path. With one relevant detail: in 12422 it even speaks of a missed sending and not of a simple delay. Says the Supreme Court: 'The communication to Enea has a specific purpose, that of allowing the monitoring of the savings obtained as a result of energy requalification interventions. There is no verification or control on these submissions: 'The communication,' continues the order, 'is therefore provided for essentially statistical purposes, and it therefore appears correct to assume that it does not have the nature of a requirement for access to the deduction.

Therefore, if the taxpayer complies with all other legal requirements, he is entitled to the ecobonus. In this case, in fact, the Inland Revenue Agency had requested the supporting documentation of the energy requalification interventionsenergy requalification. And the taxpayer had submitted the documentation in his possession. With the sole exception, of course, of the Enea communication..

This line of interpretation is also espoused by the other order: 12426. Which explains: "The College is not unaware of the existence of some specific precedents to the contrary to the solution that is deemed to be adopted, but feels unable to share its conclusions for the reasons that are set out below". In other words, it consolidates the idea that the address given so far by the Supreme Court must be radically changed.