Alternatives to tax litigation (istituti deflattivi): which one is worth using, and when

Alternatives to tax litigation (istituti deflattivi): which one is worth using, and when

Before challenging an assessment from the Agenzia delle Entrate it is worth weighing up the istituti deflattivi, the settlement mechanisms that cut penalties and time compared with tax litigation.

Accertamento con adesione (settlement by agreement): the claim raised by the tax office is settled in an adversarial exchange with the taxpayer and penalties apply at one third of the statutory minimum (art. 2, comma 5, d.lgs. 218/1997). As regards suspension of the time limit for appealing, a distinction must be drawn. For acts not subject to the prior adversarial procedure (contraddittorio preventivo) the application is filed within the time limit for appealing and that time limit is suspended for 90 days (art. 6, commi 2 e 3). For acts preceded by notice of the draft act (schema di atto, art. 6-bis, comma 3, legge 212/2000) the application must be filed within 15 days of service and the suspension lasts only 30 days (art. 6, comma 2-bis). No suspension applies where the taxpayer has already filed an application at the draft-act stage or has already had the benefit of the adversarial procedure under art. 6, commi 1 e 2-ter (art. 6, comma 2-quater). Appealing against the act amounts to waiver of the application. The regime applies to acts issued on or after 30 April 2024 (art. 41, comma 2, d.lgs. 13/2024).

Acquiescenza (acceptance): by paying within the appeal period without challenging the assessment, penalties drop to one third; this is the sensible route when the assessment is well founded.

Autotutela (administrative self-review): a request that the office annul its own act for manifest error. Art. 10-quater of legge 212/2000 sets out an exhaustive list of the cases in which self-review is mandatory, while art. 10-quinquies lists the discretionary ones. The application neither suspends nor interrupts the time limit for appealing against the act, which must be complied with in any event. A refusal, however, may be challenged in its own right: an express or implied (deemed) refusal in cases of mandatory self-review, an express refusal only in the discretionary ones (art. 19, comma 1, lettere g-bis e g-ter, d.lgs. 546/1992). Against an implied refusal an appeal may be brought after the ninetieth day from the application; against an express refusal, within 60 days of its service. There is no duty of self-review where a final judgment has been given in favour of the tax authorities, nor once a year has elapsed since the act became final because it was not appealed.

Conciliazione giudiziale (court-supervised settlement): once proceedings are under way, penalties apply at 40% of the statutory minimum at first instance, 50% on appeal and 60% in proceedings before the Court of Cassation (art. 48-ter, comma 1, d.lgs. 546/1992); before the Court of Cassation only out-of-hearing settlement (conciliazione fuori udienza) is available. The choice turns on how well founded the act is, on the amounts involved and on the appetite for risk: the firm draws up a side-by-side numerical comparison of the options before the time limits expire.

Text updated to 8 August 2026. The rules were amended several times between 2023 and 2025 (d.lgs. 219/2023, 220/2023, 13/2024, 81/2025, 192/2025): the effective dates indicated are decisive.

← Back to the Observatory · Ask the firm for an opinion