Cassation

Bank investigations only legitimate if authorisation is in the file

Judges put a limit on the usability of access to current accounts

by Alessandro Galimberti

30 April 2026

2' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Key points

The story
The position of the Supreme Court

2' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

The authorisation of the Guardia di Finanza for banking investigations is an integral part of the notice of assessment. Therefore, if the document is not attached to the notice, the taxpayer is not put in a position to verify whether the investigations concerning him were carried out within the time limits and for the purposes set by the Regional Command.

With Ordinance 11368/2026 published on 27 April, the tax section of the Italian Supreme Court changed its orientation on the qualification of what, historically, began as an internal circular of the Gdf (1/2008) with a view to playing cards with taxpayers. Referring back to that 18-year-old document, the Court considers the authorisations to be 'measures legitimising the exercise of investigative power' and not instead a simple 'internal control' by the Gdf on the correct use of investigative powers.

The affair

The case, which was destined to open up interesting scenarios, concerned the appeal of a Sicilian amateur sports club against various notices of assessment relating to the tax years from 2007 to 2010, with which the Agencia delle Entrate had recovered higher taxes on IRES, VAT and IRAP. According to the tax authorities, the Ssd had abused the favourable regime provided for non-profit associations, because it had in fact carried out activities that were, for the most part, 'purely commercial and not in line with the social acts', and therefore the proceeds had not been subject to taxation according to the ordinary tax regime.

The sports club - assisted by Alessandro Dagnino, Lexia - had already raised before the Tax Commissions, among others, the issue of the lack in thetrial file of the authorisation of the regional commander of the Guardia di Finanza, in particular with regard to the legitimacy of the bank investigations initiated on its account and from which the disputed income anomalies had emerged.

At the appeal instance, however, the matter had been settled with a few lines in which the Provincial Tax Commission had argued that the authorisation required to carry out financial investigations 'does not require any motivation', and that the illegitimacy of the taxable act could only be declared if the authorisation was lacking 'and provided that such lack produced a concrete prejudice for the taxpayer'. On appeal, the plea was not even examined by the Ctr, thus shifting the decision on the point to the appeal of legitimacy.

The position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court overturned the first judge's viewpoint, tying it to the taxpayer's right to know, from the outset, the legitimate scope and respect for the boundaries, both temporal and substantive, of the financial investigation activity.

According to the Court, the granting of authorisation is necessary for the 'delimitation of the temporal scope of the financial investigation' and for the assessment 'of the merits, that is to say, of the reasons which, in relation to the specific case, make it necessary, useful or beneficial to carry out the financial investigation'. It follows, writes the rapporteur, that the attachment of the authorisation is necessary in order to allow the taxpayer to verify 'whether the investigation was carried out within the time limits and purposes set by the Regional Commander, in relation to the concrete case'.