Tax disputes, taxpayers pay legal fees more often than the office
In 2025, private individuals were called upon to reimburse court costs in 4.5 per cent more cases than the IRS in the first instance and 14.5 per cent in the second
-U17477230181Dsd-1440x752@IlSole24Ore-Web.jpg?r=650x341)
In tax cases, the number of cases in which judgment costs are compensated is decreasing, but the balance is still on the side of the tax authorities. With the result that the favourable judgement often translates into a Pyrrhic success for the taxpayer: victorious, yes, but called upon to pay the defence lawyer and other court costs, not infrequently heavier than the contested tax.
In the first six months of 2025, there was compensation of costs in 46.6% of first instance judgments and 54.7% of second instance judgments. Percentages are decreasing, but still high.
The motivations
What gives one pause for thought, however, is another fact. The rule, in fact, is that the loser reimburses the costs to the other party, and since 2016 the law provides that the judge can only offset costs for "grave and exceptional reasons that must be expressly motivated" (Article 15 of Legislative Decree 546/1992). Let us now add up the statistics of the Tax Justice Department for the first two quarters: when the Revenue wins, the taxpayer is ordered to reimburse costs in 64.8% of cases in the first instance and 58.6% in the second; when the taxpayer is right, the office must reimburse costs in only 60.3% of cases in the first instance and 44.1% in the second. In short, with the same outcome of the dispute, businesses and households are less likely to obtain reimbursement. The only positive element is that, compared to five years ago, the percentages for awarding costs have increased and the range has narrowed: from 11 to 4.5% in the first instance, from 20 to 14.5% in the second.
The reasons given by judges for awarding costs often sound very brief: scrolling through the judgments of the last few months we find cited 'the peculiarity of the issues dealt with', the 'fluctuating jurisprudence' or 'the reasons underlying the acceptance of the appeal'; but it also happens to read only 'no costs' or 'costs offset'. Clearly, these are cases where the serious and exceptional reasons required by law do not apply.
The extent of expenditure
One must also reflect on the amount of the costs awarded. It often happens that - the value of the dispute and the conditions being equal - the sums awarded in favour of the entity are higher than those awarded to the taxpayer.
