First Floor

Tax disputes, rules useful (perhaps) to improve processes. But not to reduce the number

11 August 2025

16/05/2017 - ILSOLE24ORE - QUOTIDIANO - 5 (giustizia tributaria)

3' min read

An analysis of the data leaves no room for misunderstanding: the burden of tax litigation in recent years - reforms aside - has been almost constant. Obviously, each territorial reality has its own economic and entrepreneurial characteristics that are also reflected in the subject matter of the claims and trials: for example, IRES disputes in some regions are lower only because there are fewer capital companies in those territories than in others, just as it is obvious that in some regions where there are important merchant port ports, customs disputes are higher.

On closer inspection, the various reforms of tax justice in recent years, as formulated, may have an impact, at most, on improving the quality of the process, but not on the volume of proceedings.

A deflative effect could (obviously) be achieved by intervening on deflative instruments (and not on litigation), but the tax reform has almost totally ignored the issue. The only exception was the introduction of conciliation in Cassation, which at the limit may affect (with effects to be verified) the load of pending proceedings in the court of legitimacy.

For the deflation of judgments on the merits, on the other hand, very little has been done, not to mention the fact that, with the (agreeable) abrogation of mediation, an albeit minimal filter has been eliminated, which has not been balanced by the strengthening of the existing deflatory institutions. And in fact - except for formal touches - acquiescence, the adhesion procedure, conciliation and the other institutions have not undergone any significant changes. Suffice it to say that penalties are not allowed to be paid in instalments in the event of acquiescence on them, with continuation of the process on taxes only. As a result, no one chooses the path of acquiescence on penalties and there is neither an increase in revenue nor a reduction of the object of litigation to taxes alone.

Much emphasis has been placed on the preventive cross-examination. But a quick comparison with those in the industry is sufficient to get the impression that this institution - unless there is a change in the mindset and approach of the offices - seems almost aimed at allowing the tax authorities to finalise the claim in the light of the taxpayers' observations, while guaranteeing a further extension of the time limits.

In the end, the feeling is that a concrete reduction of the case load may not be of interest.

The legal offices of the Inland Revenue, with the exception of commendable realities, sometimes do not waive or revise unfounded claims made by colleagues in the control offices; the Collection Agency and local authorities often delegate deflattive choices to private defenders who then report in court that they have not received indications from the office to abandon or conciliate disputes. The taxpayers' advocates, in some cases, urge the initiation or continuation of litigation by invoking singular defensive exceptions, clearly unfounded and destined to be rejected, just because they are endorsed by some isolated ruling.

In addition, some of the new rules introduced, at least seemingly, appeared to be aimed at resolving disputes or at not duplicating decisions already made by other jurisdictions, or at resolving long-standing and widespread contentious interpretation issues. However, perhaps because they were unclear, they were interpreted (and therefore applied) in a way that was unfavourable to the taxpayer. Nevertheless, they have not been amended or clarified to date.

In this scenario, the one who risks losing out is the honest taxpayer, who has unfortunately come across some singular claim later endorsed by some judge according to whom - since the taxpayer is a potential evader - when in doubt, it is preferable to agree with the Treasury.

The danger is that after these singular experiences, even the taxpayer who has punctually fulfilled his tax obligations will look on with envy and perhaps emulate those who, on the other hand, undauntedly evade and certainly do not fear fanciful objections later discussed in a hearing lasting a few minutes.