Gran Gusto S.p.A., represented by Antonio Briguglio and Valeria Rossini, secured a favourable ruling from the Italian Supreme Court in litigation with the Italian Revenue Agency concerning registration tax.
Following a tax audit carried out by the Italian Financial Police (Guardia di Finanza) at the company’s premises, the Italian Revenue Agency issued a tax assessment notice recharacterising a shareholders’ capital contribution as a loan granted by a third party and subjecting the transaction to proportional registration tax.
The company challenged the notice, arguing that it had been issued in breach of Article 12(7) of the Italian Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (Law No. 212/2000), since it had been served before the expiry of the mandatory sixty-day standstill period following the delivery of the audit report, without the Revenue Agency demonstrating any exceptional and duly reasoned urgency. Both lower courts upheld the company’s claim and annulled the tax assessment.
Before the Supreme Court, the Italian Revenue Agency argued that the procedural safeguard laid down in Article 12(7) of the Italian Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights applies only to tax assessment notices (avvisi di accertamento), and not to tax liquidation notices (avvisi di liquidazione), even where the latter contain substantive assessment findings, particularly in relation to non-harmonised taxes such as registration tax.
In Judgment No. 19837, delivered on 15 June 2026, the Tax Division of the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the nullity of the tax liquidation notices issued before the expiry of the statutory sixty-day period, establishing an important principle concerning taxpayers’ procedural rights.
The Court reaffirmed that the protection afforded by pre-assessment adversarial proceedings depends on the substantive nature of the tax measure and on the intrusive nature of the audit, rather than on the formal designation of the administrative act. Accordingly, what matters is not whether the final measure is formally classified as a tax assessment notice or a tax liquidation notice, but whether it follows an on-site tax audit and performs a substantive assessment function.
The Supreme Court also rejected the Revenue Agency’s argument that the guarantee should depend on the nature of the tax involved. It confirmed that the taxpayer’s right to pre-assessment adversarial proceedings applies regardless of whether the tax is harmonised under EU law, the decisive element being the authoritative inspection carried out at the taxpayer’s premises.
The Court therefore established the following principle of law: pursuant to Article 12(7) of Law No. 212/2000, where registration tax is assessed following an on-site tax audit, the tax authorities must observe the mandatory sixty-day standstill period from the delivery of the final audit report in order to allow the taxpayer to submit observations and requests. No tax measure may be issued before the expiry of that period, except in cases of duly justified urgency. This procedural safeguard applies irrespective of the formal classification of the measure and therefore also extends to tax assessment notices that, although formally characterised as assessment notices, are substantively based on findings made during the on-site audit. The safeguard is linked to the intrusive nature of the investigative activity rather than to the formal designation of the final administrative act.