Andrea Pignataro, 280 million settlement with the Inland Revenue on tax litigation

The dispute between Andrea Pignataro, founder and president of the Ion group, with the Internal Revenue Service for the tax years 2013 and 2023, in which the entrepreneur was accused of residing abroad, has been resolved with a settlement agreement. Andrea Pignataro, estimated by Forbes to be the second richest man in Italy after Giovanni Ferrero, has reached an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service and will pay the tax authorities 280 million. The initial dispute, with penalties and interest, amounted to 1.2 billion. This was written on Sunday 8 June Il Resto del Carlino.

On the afternoon of Sunday 8 May, a note from the Facchini Rossi Michelutti law and tax firm confirmed that the agreement between Pignataro and the tax authorities had been reached, but without specifying any figures. 'On 29 May 2025, the Agenzia delle Entrate, Direzione Provinciale di Bologna,' the note reads, 'formalised the conclusion of the assessment initiated against Andrea Pignataro, founder and president of the ION Group, relating to the tax periods between 2013 and 2023. The agreement reached has made it possible to avoid a long and complex legal dispute". "The agreement does not imply any acknowledgement, either explicit or implicit, of guilt or evasion, but rather reflects a settlement inspired by the principles of good faith and institutional collaboration," it is stressed.

The proceedings,' Pignataro's lawyers' note summarises, 'were triggered by an audit by the Guardia di Finanza, which alleged tax residence in Italy for the period 2013-2023, despite the fact that Pignataro had been living permanently first in London and then in Switzerland for over 30 years with the centre of his business interests abroad.

Numerous rulings of the Supreme Court and European case law confirm the prevalence of economic - and not family - interests in determining tax domicile. The Italian Revenue Agency itself, in Circular No. 20/2024, acknowledged that the previous legislation contained 'objective interpretative uncertainties'.

On Monday 9 June, a new note from the lawyers arrived with some clarifications. In relation to the objections raised against Dr Andrea Pignataro, the note reads, concerning the identification of his presumed tax residence in Italy in relation to the tax periods from 2013 to 2023, Pasquale Formica, Managing Partner of SLF - Studio Legale e Fiscale, who together with lawyer Riccardo Michelutti of Studio Legale Tributario Facchini Rossi Michelutti represented Dr Pignataro in the interlocutions with the Agenzia delle Entrate, explained: "The agreement reflects the mutual recognition of the existence of objective regulatory uncertainty. Dr. Pignataro, on the basis of the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, has always considered himself to be tax resident abroad, where he has been permanently residing for over thirty years, his physical presence in Italy being, among other things, absolutely limited and his economic interests in our country marginal. The core of the dispute (amounting to more than 95% of the total amount of taxes allegedly not paid) lay in the application of the CFC (controlled foreign company) rules on an accounting reorganisation of the ION group carried out in 2022, which generated profits only on an accounting basis, without any actual distribution of wealth in the hands of Mr. Pignataro. In particular, this recovery originates from the application of a controversial interpretation made by the same Agenzia delle Entrate (principle no. 5/21) with respect to which the taxpayer has highlighted, with precise technical arguments, the illegitimacy in terms of European legislation. Dr. Pignataro signed the adhesion deeds in order to facilitate the resolution of the dispute, remaining convinced of the full legitimacy of his actions given his desire to avoid the continuation of a situation of interpretative uncertainty also for the future. In the same vein, the Revenue Agency also formally acknowledged the regulatory complexity by disapplying any penalty on the allegedly taxable income. This underlines a behaviour inspired from the outset by absolute good faith. It was therefore an agreement aimed at bridging an interpretative gap and avoiding a long and complex litigation for both parties. The affair was concluded in a climate of fairness and institutional respect despite a regulatory context characterised by undeniable vagueness"..