Studio PonchioSTP
Does an amending return in the taxpayer’s favour, filed after the notice of irregularity, save you from the collection notice?
The Corte di cassazione (Italian Supreme Court) takes as settled the validity of a dichiarazione integrativa (amending tax return) filed after the comunicazione di irregolarità (notice of irregularity) and before the tax roll. On its own, however, it does not set aside the cartella di pagamento (tax collection notice): the court examines the merits and requires proof of the corrected figures, even where the Agenzia delle entrate (Italian Revenue Agency) never disputed them.
No, it is not enough. An amending return in the taxpayer’s favour filed after the notice of irregularity but before the cartella di pagamento retains its effect even after the tax roll has been issued, and the avviso bonario (as the notice of irregularity is commonly called) does not bar it. Precisely for that reason the dispute shifts to the merits, where it is the taxpayer who must prove that the corrected figures are the true ones.
The ruling and the provisions applied
Corte di cassazione, Fifth Civil Division, order of 31 August 2026, No. 24863 (hearing in chambers of 13 May 2026; ECLI:IT:CASS:2026:24863CIV; President Iofrida, Reporting Judge Gori). A cartella di pagamento was issued to a company following the automated check under Article 54-bis of Presidential Decree No. 633/1972 on its 2017 VAT return, filed on 28 April 2018, which showed VAT payable of EUR 69,726. The notice of irregularity was served on 8 November 2021; the amending return in the taxpayer’s favour was filed on 25 November 2021.
The amending return was timely. Article 8(6-bis) of Presidential Decree No. 322/1998 allows errors or omissions to be corrected “no later than the time limits laid down by Article 57 of Presidential Decree No. 633 of 26 October 1972”, that is, 31 December of the fifth year following the year in which the return was filed: in this case, 31 December 2023. For direct taxes the twin provision is Article 2(8), which refers to Article 43 of Presidential Decree No. 600/1973; paragraph 8-bis, relied on in the appeal, since Decree-Law No. 193/2016 no longer sets the time limit for the amending return: it governs the use of the credit by way of set-off and preserves the possibility of relying on the errors at the assessment stage or in court. Article 2(2) of Legislative Decree No. 462/1997 then avoids enrolment on the tax roll if payment is made within sixty days, with penalties reduced to one third.
No bar, but the merits are opened
The appellate court had referred to a “logical impediment” arising from the avviso bonario. The Court reads the reasoning as a whole and takes note that the amending return was held valid and effective: it “cannot but retain its effect even after the issue of the latter”, that is, of the cartella di pagamento, so that “the focus cannot but shift to the substantive correctness of the return”. There was no ruling beyond the pleadings: tax proceedings fall within the category of challenge-on-the-merits proceedings, aimed at a decision that replaces both the return filed by the taxpayer and the assessment made by the tax office (Cass. No. 18777 of 2020, cited in the reasoning).
The order, however, dismisses the appeal and does not lay down a principle of law on the non-preclusive nature of the notice of irregularity: the point remains to be settled.
What is needed to rely on the amending return
Here lies the practical lesson. The company had produced VAT registers and periodic VAT settlements, from which no balance payable for 2017 emerged, “while refraining, however, from explaining the origin of the different accounting figures entered in the original return”. Taxable transactions fell from EUR 605,060 to EUR 304,098, 49.7 per cent less, wiping out the liability; and the 2017 spesometro (invoice data return) matched the first return, not the amending one. The Agenzia’s failure to object on receipt of the amending return counts neither as acquiescence nor as evidence.
The link with Article 7(5-bis) of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992 must be handled with care: the provision places on the tax administration the burden of proving the violations alleged, but in automated settlement the claim arises from the figures declared by the taxpayer, which Article 54-bis(4) treats “for all purposes, as declared by the taxpayer”. Whoever invokes an error in their own favour must prove it (Article 2697 of the Italian Civil Code). The point is not free from dispute.
On the procedural level, proceedings commenced at first instance before 4 January 2024 remain governed by Article 58 of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992 in the version preceding Legislative Decree No. 220/2023, which allows new documents on appeal (Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court) No. 36 of 2025 and Cass. No. 16456 of 2026, cited in the reasoning).
In practice
– **Who acts**: the person in charge of the accounts and whoever handles the litigation, together and before the appeal is lodged.
– **By when**: today sixty days from the notice for clarifications (Article 54-bis(3), as worded by Legislative Decree No. 108/2024, for notices processed from 2025) and for reduced-penalty payment; sixty days from service of the cartella di pagamento for the appeal.
– **With which document**: an istanza di autotutela (request for administrative self-correction) with a reconciliation schedule between the original return, the amending return and external data (electronic invoices, electronically transmitted daily takings, LIPE periodic VAT settlement communications), to be attached later to the appeal.
– **What to keep**: registers and settlements are not enough. The underlying accounting records, the credit and debit notes, an item-by-item reconstruction of the error and a written, dated explanation of its origin are needed.
– **Legislation in force**: from 1 January 2027 Article 36-bis of Presidential Decree No. 600/1973 is merged into Article 243, and Article 54-bis of Presidential Decree No. 633/1972 into Article 276, of the consolidated act on compliance and assessment (Legislative Decree No. 141/2026); Article 8 of Presidential Decree No. 322/1998 is not carried over, and Article 77 of the consolidated act provides for its continued application. From the same date, Articles 7(5-bis), 21 and 58 of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992 become Articles 52, 67 and 112 of the consolidated act on tax justice (Legislative Decree No. 175/2024).
Frequently asked questions
Does the avviso bonario prevent the filing of an amending return in the taxpayer’s favour?
No. The time limit under Article 8(6-bis) of Presidential Decree No. 322/1998 is not exhausted by the notice of irregularity and the amending return retains its effect even after the cartella di pagamento has been issued. What changes, however, is the centre of gravity of the defence, which shifts to proving the corrected content.
If the Agenzia does not dispute the amending return, must the court take it at face value?
No. Tax proceedings are challenge-on-the-merits proceedings: the court issues a decision that replaces the contested acts and may assess whether the corrected figures are well founded even in the absence of a specific objection by the tax office.
Are VAT registers and periodic VAT settlements enough to prove the correction?
Not on their own. The origin of the incorrect figures in the original return must be explained and the amending return must be reconciled with the data already held in the Anagrafe tributaria (national tax database): if the external documentation confirms the first return, the correction remains unproven.
Sources
Corte di cassazione, Fifth Civil Division, order of 31 August 2026, No. 24863 (hearing of 13 May 2026), ECLI:IT:CASS:2026:24863CIV — President Iofrida, Reporting Judge Gori.
Article 8(6-bis) and (6-quinquies) and Article 2(8) and (8-bis) of Presidential Decree No. 322 of 22 July 1998, as worded by Article 5(1) of Decree-Law No. 193 of 22 October 2016, converted by Law No. 225 of 1 December 2016.
Article 54-bis(3) and (4) and Article 57(1) of Presidential Decree No. 633 of 26 October 1972.
Article 36-bis of Presidential Decree No. 600 of 29 September 1973; Article 43 of Presidential Decree No. 600 of 29 September 1973.
Article 2(2) of Legislative Decree No. 462 of 18 December 1997.
Articles 7(5-bis), 21(1) and 58 of Legislative Decree No. 546 of 31 December 1992; Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 220 of 30 December 2023.
Legislative Decree No. 175 of 14 November 2024 (consolidated act on tax justice), Articles 52, 67, 112 and 131.
Article 2697 of the Italian Civil Code.
Legislative Decree No. 141 of 5 August 2026 (consolidated act on compliance and assessment), Articles 77, 243, 276 and 368 of the annexed consolidated act.
Legislative Decree No. 108 of 5 August 2024, Article 3(7).
Corte costituzionale, judgment of 27 March 2025, No. 36; Cass. No. 18777 of 2020 and Cass. No. 16456 of 2026, cited in the reasoning.
However, the absence of any objection from the Agenzia does not amount to acknowledgement: whoever files an amending return in their own favour after the avviso bonario must be ready to prove its content with registers, periodic settlements and a documented explanation of the original error, because it is on that evidence, not on form, that the court decides.
International observatory
The institutional sources and international reviews the Studio draws on in its daily work.