Assessment and defence · Ferrara
Prior hearing, settlement by agreement, self-review, appeal: deadlines and remedies after the d.lgs. 220/2023 reform, with statutory references.
The deadline for an appeal is sixty days from service, suspended from 1 to 31 August. Before appealing, you may apply for accertamento con adesione (settlement by agreement with the tax office), which further suspends the deadline, or request annulment in autotutela (the authority’s own-motion review). Paying within sixty days cuts penalties to one third.
The deadline for challenge is set by art. 21 del d.lgs. 31 dicembre 1992, n. 546 at sixty days from service of the deed, with the summer suspension from 1 to 31 August under art. 1 della legge 7 ottobre 1969, n. 742. Within the same period it is possible to apply for accertamento con adesione under art. 6 del d.lgs. 19 giugno 1997, n. 218: the application suspends the deadline for appealing and opens the discussion with the office; if the settlement is concluded, penalties are reduced to one third of the statutory minimum (art. 2, comma 5, d.lgs. 218/1997). The length of the suspension is not uniform, however: after the coordination of art.
6 with the prior-hearing rules, effected by the legislative decrees implementing the tax reform, it varies according to whether or not the deed was preceded by a draft deed and to when the application is filed. It is the first item to fix in the diary, because the final date for the appeal depends on it. Alternatively there is acquiescenza (acceptance of the assessment) under art. 15 del d.lgs. 218/1997, with payment within sixty days and penalties at one third. The notice of assessment is a combined assessment-and-collection instrument under art. 29 del d.l. 31 maggio 2010, n. 78: it becomes enforceable sixty days after service, and the sums are handed to the collection agent thirty days after the final payment deadline. None of the three routes should be chosen without first reading the statement of reasons and checking the service.
Legal references: artt. 19, 21 d.lgs. 546/1992; L. 742/1969; artt. 2, 6, 15 d.lgs. 218/1997; art. 29 d.l. 78/2010 conv. L. 122/2010
the guide to tax audits · early (ante tempus) assessment
No. Art. 17-bis del d.lgs. 546/1992, which imposed a complaint-and-mediation stage for disputes worth up to 50,000 euros, was repealed by d.lgs. 220/2023 with effect for appeals served from 4 January 2024. Settlement by agreement, self-review and in-court conciliation remain available.
The repeal is enacted by art. 2, comma 1, lett. i), del d.lgs. 30 dicembre 2023, n. 220, implementing the tax reform mandate contained in legge 9 agosto 2023, n. 111, and applies to appeals served from the date the decree entered into force. For earlier appeals the previous rules continue to operate, so the deadlines for entering an appearance must be reconstructed case by case. The legislature has moved the preliminary discussion upstream: the taxpayer’s hearing is now provided for generally by art. 6-bis della legge 27 luglio 2000, n. 212, introduced by d.lgs. 30 dicembre 2023, n.
219, which requires the communication of a draft deed with no fewer than sixty days for counter-arguments, except for automated, substantially automated, prompt-settlement and formal-check deeds identified by the decreto del Ministro dell’economia e delle finanze del 24 aprile 2024. Within the proceedings, conciliation remains available, out of court or in court, governed by artt. 48, 48-bis and 48-bis.1 del d.lgs. 546/1992, with penalty reductions graduated by the stage at which it occurs: the applicable measure is that of art. 48-ter in the wording in force ratione temporis, taking account of the amendments introduced by d.lgs. 87/2024 and their temporal scope, and must therefore be checked against the date of the alleged violation.
Legal references: art. 17-bis d.lgs. 546/1992 (abrogato); art. 2, comma 1, lett. i), d.lgs. 220/2023; L. 111/2023; art. 6-bis L. 212/2000; d.lgs. 219/2023; d.m. MEF 24 aprile 2024; artt. 48, 48-bis, 48-bis.1, 48-ter d.lgs. 546/1992
pre-litigation settlement tools
The contraddittorio preventivo (the taxpayer’s right to be heard before assessment) is the right to make one’s case before the deed is issued. The office communicates a draft deed and allows no fewer than sixty days for observations. If the hearing is due and is missing, the deed can be annulled: the defect, however, must be raised in the appeal.
Art. 6-bis della legge 212/2000, introduced by d.lgs. 219/2023, generalises the prior hearing for all independently challengeable deeds, with the exception of the automated, substantially automated, prompt-settlement and formal-check deeds identified by the implementing ministerial decree, and of control deeds where there is a well-founded risk to collection. The draft deed carries an invitation to submit counter-arguments within a period of no fewer than sixty days; the deed cannot be adopted before that period expires and, if the period ends after the limitation deadline or within the preceding one hundred and twenty days, the latter is extended by one hundred and twenty days.
The regime of art. 12, comma 7, della legge 212/2000 remains separate for audits involving access, inspection or verification on the premises: the audit report opens sixty days for observations, before whose expiry the notice cannot be issued save for reasoned urgency. Breach of the hearing requirement produces annullability, not nullity: under art. 7-bis della legge 212/2000, grounds of annullability must be pleaded in the appeal, on pain of the court being unable to raise them of its own motion.
Legal references: artt. 6-bis, 7-bis, 12, comma 7, L. 212/2000; d.lgs. 219/2023; d.m. MEF 24 aprile 2024; art. 21 d.lgs. 546/1992
how assessments take shape · tax audits: the guide
The administration must prove in court the violations alleged in the challenged deed; the judge annuls the deed if the proof is lacking, contradictory or insufficient to establish the merits of the claim. The taxpayer still bears the burden of proving the facts founding the right, for example in refund cases.
The rule is in art. 7, comma 5-bis, del d.lgs. 546/1992, introduced by art. 6 della legge 31 agosto 2022, n. 130. The provision has not abolished statutory presumptions: where the law lays down a presumption — think of the bank account investigations of art. 32 del d.P.R. 600/1973 and art. 51 del d.P.R. 633/1972 — the burden of rebuttal remains on the taxpayer, who must identify the beneficiary of the withdrawals or show that the movements were taken into account in determining income. What art. 7, comma 5-bis, requires is that simple presumptive reconstructions rest on serious, precise and concordant elements within the meaning of art.
2729 of the codice civile, and that the judge’s reasoning account for proof, not mere plausibility. The same legge 130/2022 made written witness evidence admissible (art. 7, comma 4, d.lgs. 546/1992), a still under-used tool that is helpful when the allegation rests on third-party statements gathered during the investigation. On the weight of third-party statements and the limits of inductive assessment, the case law of the supreme court is not entirely uniform: it is a point to be examined case by case.
Legal references: art. 7, commi 4 e 5-bis, d.lgs. 546/1992; L. 130/2022; art. 32 d.P.R. 600/1973; art. 51 d.P.R. 633/1972; art. 2729 c.c.
reconstructing revenues in assessments · parallel accounts and presumptions
It depends on how well the reasoning holds up and on the cost of the alternative. Settling by agreement or by acceptance brings penalties down to one third and halts collection; an appeal does not automatically suspend payment and must be accompanied, where needed, by an application for suspension. The choice is made after costing both routes.
The comparison rests on three quantities. The first is the expected outcome: the strength of the grounds, the solidity of the documentary evidence and how settled the case law is on the point. The second is the certain cost of settlement: penalties reduced to one third of the minimum in the event of adesione or acquiescenza (artt. 2, comma 5, e 15 del d.lgs. 218/1997), the availability of instalments, immediate closure of the position. The third is the financial cost of litigation: filing the appeal does not suspend enforcement of the deed, and collection proceeds in instalments under art.
68 del d.lgs. 546/1992 and art. 15 del d.P.R. 29 settembre 1973, n. 602; suspension of the deed must be sought from the court under art. 47 del d.lgs. 546/1992, demonstrating both fumus boni iuris and serious and irreparable harm. Litigation costs must also be weighed: art. 15, comma 2-octies, del d.lgs. 546/1992 charges the costs of the proceedings to the party that refused a conciliation proposal without justified reason, where the outcome is no more favourable than the proposal. The decision is not a matter of principle: it is a calculation.
Legal references: artt. 15, 47, 68 d.lgs. 546/1992; artt. 2, comma 5, e 15 d.lgs. 218/1997; art. 15 d.P.R. 602/1973
pre-litigation settlement tools · fee calculation · request a quotation · guide to tax audits · guide to pre-litigation settlement tools · service of the collection notice · the “rottamazione” of collection rolls · summer suspension of deadlines
Anyone who has received a deed and wants to know in advance what assistance involves can use the fee calculator or request a quotation: the assessment of the deadlines, though, must be done at once, because the sixty days run from service, not from reading.
Studio PonchioSTP