Studio PonchioSTP
Service of a tax demand: specific challenge and proper reasons
To challenge service of a tax demand effectively, the denial must be specific, document by document; in return the taxpayer can require the court to give reasons on every ground. So held Cass. no. 23969 of 23 July 2026, quashing and remitting for apparent reasoning.
Order no. 23969 of 23 July 2026 of the Fifth Civil Division of the Italian Court of Cassation (ECLI:IT:CASS:2026:23969CIV, deliberation of 26 June 2026) keeps apart two matters that are often confused in practice: the burden of specific challenge borne by the taxpayer, and the duty to give reasons borne by the court. A party who denies the conformity of copies must state how they differ from the originals; a court that finds service proved must state why. The decision is not final on the merits: the case continues before the Regional Tax Court of Tuscany, differently constituted.
The case
The taxpayer had challenged a third-party attachment based on fifteen tax demands, for tax claims of EUR 115,726.02, and the subsequent payment notice, arguing defects in the service of the underlying demands: delivery of the sealed envelope to a person other than the addressee, no proof of receipt of the informative registered letters, and service entrusted to a private postal operator. The second-instance court, by judgment no. 501/2022 filed on 1 April 2022, had dismissed the appeal. The appeal to the Court of Cassation (case no. 26506/2022) was allowed on the second ground alone; the first, third and fourth were dismissed and the fifth was absorbed.
A denial of copies must be specific
The first ground, based on Articles 2712, 2718 and 2719 of the Italian Civil Code and Articles 214 and 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. Article 2719 gives photographic copies of documents the same effect as certified copies unless conformity with the original is expressly denied; but for the denial to take effect it must identify the elements suggesting that copy and original do not correspond, or deny that the original exists at all. A generic challenge, or a blanket reservation covering the whole of the opposing party’s production, produces no effect, and the document remains on the file with its evidential value. A further distinction matters: challenging the conformity of a copy of an acknowledgement of receipt is not the same as challenging the validity of the service procedure. The first goes to documentary evidence, the second to the regularity of the act.
The court’s duty to give reasons on challenges to service
The second ground was allowed. The Court held the reasoning under appeal to be merely apparent: it had confined itself to stating that «ample and detailed proof was given of service of the payment notices», without examining the challenge concerning delivery to a person other than the addressee, or the one concerning the informative registered letters, or the one concerning service by a private postal operator. Reasoning is apparent where, though graphically present, it does not make the logical path followed perceptible (Cass., Joint Divisions, no. 22232 of 3 November 2016), falling below the constitutional minimum required by Article 111(6) of the Italian Constitution (Cass., Joint Divisions, no. 8053 of 7 April 2014). The defect is raised under Article 360(1)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for breach of Articles 132(2)(4) of that Code and 36(2)(4) of Legislative Decree 546/1992 — not as failure to rule under Article 112 — and that is why the third and fourth grounds were dismissed.
What is actually challenged in service by post
Article 26 of Presidential Decree 602/1973, still in force because its repeal by Legislative Decree 33/2025 has been deferred to 1 January 2027 by Decree-Law 200/2025, allows a tax demand to be served by direct dispatch of a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, in a sealed envelope, service being completed on the date shown on the acknowledgement signed by the addressee, by an authorised person or by the concierge. The Italian Constitutional Court has held challenges to this simplified model unfounded (judgment no. 175 of 2018; order no. 2 of 2020). Where the envelope is physically delivered at the address to a person entitled to receive it, case law of the Court of Cassation rules out the need for a subsequent informative registered letter. The position differs where the item is held at the post office: notice of deposit is required, and proof that service was completed calls for the acknowledgement of receipt of that second registered letter to be produced in court, proof of dispatch not being enough (Cass., Joint Divisions, no. 10012 of 15 April 2021).
As to private operators, the reservation in favour of the universal service provider, laid down by Article 4 of Legislative Decree 261/1999 for service by post under Law 890/1982, was repealed by Article 1(57)(b) of Law 124/2017 with effect from 10 September 2017; the requirements for the special individual licence were set by the Italian communications authority AGCom in decision no. 77/18/CONS of 20 February 2018. For service effected earlier, the Joint Divisions have classified service by an operator without a licence as void rather than non-existent, and therefore capable of being cured (judgment no. 299 of 10 January 2020). The date of each individual service is therefore the first fact to establish.
What to do
Before filing, counsel should ask the collection agent in writing to produce the counterfoil or a copy of each demand together with the certificate of service or the acknowledgement of receipt: Article 26(5) of Presidential Decree 602/1973 requires these to be kept for five years and produced at the taxpayer’s request. The request should be kept with proof of dispatch. In the application, the denial must be set out document by document, stating how the copy differs from the original; the challenge to service must be built demand by demand, stating the date, the method, the person effecting service, the capacity declared by the recipient and the outcome of any post office holding, with an express request that the acknowledgements of receipt be produced. In the proceedings after remittal it is worth filing a pleading listing each ground one by one: it is against that list that the adequacy of the reasoning will be measured on any further appeal.
- Cass. civ., Fifth Division, order no. 23969 of 23 July 2026 (ECLI:IT:CASS:2026:23969CIV) – specific denial and apparent reasoning.
- Presidential Decree 602/1973, Article 26 – service of the tax demand; paragraph 5, five-year retention and production.
- Italian Civil Code, Articles 2712, 2718 and 2719; Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 214 and 215 – effect and denial of copies.
- Cass., Joint Divisions, nos. 8053/2014 and 22232/2016 – constitutional minimum and apparent reasoning.
- Cass., Joint Divisions, no. 10012/2021 – proof of completion where the item is held at the post office.
- Cass., Joint Divisions, no. 299/2020 – service by an unlicensed operator is void, not non-existent.
- Italian Constitutional Court, judgment no. 175/2018 and order no. 2/2020 – lawfulness of direct service under Article 26.