Tax Observatory › Assessment and litigation › Tax appeal to the Court of Cassation served more than one year after the judgment: only service on the party in person is valid

Tax appeal to the Court of Cassation served more than one year after the judgment: only service on the party in person is valid

Italian Court of Cassation, Fifth Civil Division, judgment No. 26872 of 14 October 2026: once one year from publication, plus the sospensione feriale (August suspension of procedural time limits), has elapsed, the appeal to the Court of Cassation against a tax court judgment must be served on the party in person. The continued effect of the elected domicile (Article 17, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992) does not prevail over the last paragraph of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Renewed service on counsel is void and the appeal is inadmissible.

Once one year from the publication of the judgment of the Corte di giustizia tributaria di secondo grado (second-instance tax court) has elapsed, extended by the sospensione feriale (August suspension of procedural time limits), the appeal to the Court of Cassation (ricorso per cassazione, an appeal on points of law) must be served on the party in person and not on the counsel at whose office the party elected domicile in the previous instance. So held the Italian Court of Cassation (Corte di cassazione) in judgment No. 26872 of 14 October 2026: the continued effect (ultrattività) of the elected domicile under Article 17, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992 does not prevail over the residual rule in the last paragraph of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If service renewed by order of the Court is again effected on counsel, it is void, the mandatory time limit does not start afresh and the appeal is inadmissible.

The case

A taxpayer challenged an intimazione di pagamento (demand for payment) for IRPEF (personal income tax) for 2007, arguing that she had never been served with the underlying cartella di pagamento (tax collection notice). She won at first instance, with the collection agent in default of appearance; the Commissione tributaria regionale (regional tax court) of Lombardy, by judgment No. 4796/2019 filed on 27 November 2019, reversed that decision. The appeal to the Court of Cassation was served on the counsel who had represented the agency on appeal and on the Avvocatura dello Stato (State legal service): the first service was legally non-existent because the delivery receipt had not been produced, the second void because the agency had not been represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato in the proceedings on the merits. The Court (order No. 13922/2025) ordered renewal of service under Article 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the appellant renewed service within the time allowed, on 12 June 2025, by certified e-mail (PEC), but again on the Avvocatura dello Stato and on the private counsel (avvocato del libero foro), not on Agenzia delle Entrate-Riscossione (the collection agency) in person. A second interlocutory order (No. 1128/2026) noted that the party had not been served in person and referred the case to a public hearing on the relationship between the last paragraph of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 17 of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992.

The rule of law

Under Article 62, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992, the appeal to the Court of Cassation is governed by the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure: there is no “special” cassation procedure for tax matters (Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions (Sezioni Unite), judgment No. 14916/2016). The same Joint Divisions had recognised that the continued effect of a domicile elected at first instance affects the place of service of the appeal to the Court of Cassation, which is validly served at the elected domicile even if the opposing party did not enter an appearance on appeal. That rule, however, operates under the first paragraph of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure (second case). Judgment No. 26872/2026 addresses a different question: whether the continued effect of the elected domicile also withstands the residual provision in the last paragraph, under which, “in any event”, once one year has elapsed from the publication of the judgment, the appeal is served on the party in person.

The answer is no, in line with Court of Cassation judgments No. 8818/2022 and No. 20255/2018. On a literal reading, “in any event” makes the rule all-embracing for any appeal (impugnazione) served after the one-year period (Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions, judgment No. 2197/2006). As to its rationale, after one year the relationship between the party and the counsel at whose office domicile was elected is presumed to have ended, and that presumption is not displaced by the fact that, in tax proceedings, the elected domicile carries over to the subsequent instances. The one-year period is extended by the sospensione feriale (Court of Cassation, judgment No. 11069/2022; Article 1 of Law No. 742/1969), and the rule also applies to renewed service ordered under the first paragraph of Article 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The principle of law reads as follows: renewed service effected at the domicile elected at the office of counsel in the previous instance, rather than on the party in person, once one year plus the sospensione feriale has already elapsed, is void for breach of the last paragraph of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the consequent inadmissibility of the appeal, given the mandatory nature of the time limit under Article 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Why there is no second chance

The renewed service was timely but void. Once service has been declared void a first time with an order for renewal, the first paragraph of Article 162 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not allow a second time limit for the same step, and Article 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits any extension of mandatory time limits, even by agreement between the parties. The only remaining remedy is relief from the time limit (rimessione in termini) for a cause not attributable to the party (Article 153, second paragraph, of the Code of Civil Procedure), which the Court mentions without finding that its conditions were met in the case decided.

Practical consequences

The one-year period is rarely exceeded with the original appeal, because the long time limit under Article 327 of the Code of Civil Procedure is six months; it is exceeded when the Court orders renewal of void service and the renewal falls beyond the threshold. The calendar must be fixed at once: judgment published on 15 March 2026, one year expiring on 15 March 2027, plus 31 days of sospensione feriale (1 to 31 August 2026), final date 15 April 2027. After that date, service at the elected domicile is void. The rule is unchanged in the text of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure as rewritten by Legislative Decree No. 164/2024.

For Agenzia delle Entrate-Riscossione, “the party in person” means the agency at its registered office, by certified e-mail taken from the public registers or through a court bailiff (ufficiale giudiziario) (last paragraph of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which refers to Article 137 et seq.; for legal persons, Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure), not the private counsel nor the Avvocatura dello Stato where the latter did not act for the agency in the proceedings on the merits. For the Agenzia delle Entrate (Italian Revenue Agency), which is represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato, service is effected at the Avvocatura dello Stato (Article 11 of Royal Decree No. 1611/1933); in our view, after the one-year period, the prudent course is to add service at the registered office of the Agency. For a private taxpayer, service must be effected at the place of residence or registered office (Article 137 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure) or at the digital domicile (domicilio digitale) recorded in the public registers.

For the client: in tax litigation, an appeal that is well founded on the merits may be closed without any examination because of an error as to the addressee of service, leaving the appeal judgment final and doubling the contributo unificato (court filing fee). That risk must be assessed as early as the appeal stage, together with the available istituti deflattivi (dispute-avoidance procedures).

In practice

• When the second-instance judgment is published, counsel records in the case file and in the firm’s diary the final date of one year plus the sospensione feriale.
• If the Court orders renewal of service under Article 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the one-year period has elapsed, service must be effected on the party in person within the time allowed, never at the domicile elected in the proceedings on the merits.
• Before serving a public body, counsel checks who represented it in the proceedings on the merits and uses the body’s certified e-mail address taken from the public registers; counsel keeps the acceptance and delivery receipts, or the proof of service (relata), and the extract from the register, to be filed as evidence.
• The taxpayer asks counsel for written confirmation of the addressee and date of service.

Frequently asked questions

When does the obligation to serve the appeal to the Court of Cassation on the party in person arise?

One year after the publication of the judgment under appeal, extended by the sospensione feriale from 1 to 31 August. Before that date the elected domicile applies, even if the party did not enter an appearance on appeal.

Can renewed service ordered by the Court be repeated if it was effected incorrectly?

No. The time limit set under Article 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory: void renewed service gives no right to a new time limit (Article 162 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and Article 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits its extension. Relief from the time limit (rimessione in termini) remains available only for a cause not attributable to the party.

What changes from 1 January 2027 with the consolidated Act on tax justice?

Legislative Decree No. 175/2024 repeals Legislative Decree No. 546/1992 and applies from 1 January 2027 (Articles 130 and 131). Article 17 is reproduced in Article 62 of the consolidated Act and Article 62 in Article 116 (paragraph 2-bis becomes paragraph 3), with unchanged content: the principle stated in the judgment remains current.

Sources

Italian Court of Cassation, Fifth Civil Division, judgment No. 26872 of 14 October 2026 (public hearing of 16 September 2026, President Napolitano, Reporting Judge Angarano, ECLI:IT:CASS:2026:26872CIV), full text

Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions, judgment No. 14916/2016; Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions, judgment No. 2197/2006; Court of Cassation judgments No. 8818/2022, No. 20255/2018 and No. 11069/2022, as cited in the reasoning

Code of Civil Procedure (Royal Decree No. 1443/1940), Articles 153, 162, 291, 327 and 330, text in force on 28 October 2026 (Normattiva)

Legislative Decree No. 546 of 31 December 1992, Articles 17 and 62, text in force on 28 October 2026 (Normattiva)

Legislative Decree No. 175 of 14 November 2024, consolidated Act on tax justice, Articles 62, 116, 130 and 131, the latter in the text in force from 31 December 2025 (applicable from 1 January 2027) (Normattiva)

Royal Decree No. 1611 of 30 October 1933, Article 11; Legislative Decree No. 300 of 30 July 1999, Article 72 (Normattiva)

Law No. 742 of 7 October 1969, Article 1 (Normattiva)