Observatory › Litigation and collection › Service of a cartella di pagamento valid without the second registered letter

Service of a cartella di pagamento valid without the second registered letter

On when service of a tax demand is complete, the case law draws distinctions. Knowing when the second registered letter is not required shapes the defence strategy.

Whether service was properly effected is often the first thing to check on receiving a cartella. The rules distinguish direct service by post from service through a process server or officer, each completed under different rules.

For businesses and professionals the cartella is as a rule served at the certified digital address (domicilio digitale) under Article 26, second paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 602/1973 and Article 60-ter of Presidential Decree No. 600/1973: in that case the check concerns the address used (INI-PEC, INAD or a special digital address), the acceptance and delivery receipts and, where the mailbox is full or inactive, the second delivery attempt and the electronic deposit of the document.

When the second registered letter is not required

Where service is effected directly by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt (Article 26, first paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 602/1973), the rules of the ordinary postal service apply: delivery to the addressee, to a family member, to a person employed in the household, office or business, or to the building’s doorkeeper (portiere) completes service on the date of the acknowledgement of receipt, without any second registered letter of notice (Corte di Cassazione, judgment No. 12083/2016; Constitutional Court, judgment No. 175/2018). The registered letter of notice is required, by contrast, in service through a messo (notifying officer) whenever the person receiving the document is not the addressee (Article 60, first paragraph, point b-bis, of Presidential Decree No. 600/1973), in service through an ufficiale giudiziario (court bailiff) when the document is handed to the doorkeeper or to a neighbour (Article 139, fourth paragraph, of the Code of Civil Procedure), and in service by post governed by legge 20 novembre 1982, n. 890 when the document is handed to someone other than the addressee (Article 7) or the addressee is temporarily absent (Article 8, with proof given by the acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of deposit, the CAD: Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, judgment No. 10012/2021).

The defence

Challenging a defect in service calls for reconstructing precisely how the document was served and what the supporting records show (the relata di notifica, the acknowledgements of receipt). Rigorous analysis avoids unfounded objections and gives weight to those that really decide the case.

• Art. 26 d.P.R. 602/1973: service of the cartella di pagamento.
• Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, judgment No. 10012 of 15 April 2021 (service by post under legge 890/1982, temporary absence, proof of the CAD); Corte di Cassazione, Tax Division (Sezione tributaria), judgment No. 12083 of 10 June 2016 (direct service under Article 26: rules of the ordinary postal service); Constitutional Court, judgment No. 175 of 23 July 2018.
• Articles 60 and 60-ter of Presidential Decree No. 600/1973; Articles 7 and 8 of legge 890/1982.