That said, in this case , the Court , having heard the report of the Director -Rapporteur, rejects in private on the action brought by the Inland Revenue " as the ruling has made ​​this assessment on the lack of any justification or explanation of the tax , which was to ascertain if it ever be challenged with the medium recall . "

In fact , they point to the judges, " the affirmation of the trial court that the folder does not contain additional information that may hold if the reasons for the Administration could never be challenged with the medium recall "

Hence the conclusion that " the indication of a ' omitted or insufficient payment ' does not constitute adequate grounds for a tax claim ."

The Supreme Court therefore argues that the appellate court has found in fact to the "lack of any justification or explanation of the tax ."

In light of this , the Inland Revenue , unsuccessful on appeal, it should have contested quell'accertamento in fact not through recourse to the Supreme Court but through the remedy of revocation governed by. 64 of Legislative Decree no . N . 546/1992 and art. 395 Code of Civil Procedure

The Court , however, does not specify a reason for revision could have been alleged by the tax . In relation to the case decided by the order in question , it is believed that revision could be claimed on the basis of n . 4 of Art. 395 , first paragraph , which allows the revision of the appeal " if the sentence is the effect of an error of fact resulting from the acts or documents of the case. There is this error when the decision is based on the assumption of a fact the truth is met firmly excluded, or when the alleged non-existence of a fact the truth is positively established, and as much in one as in the other case if the he did not a moot point on which the sentence he spoke . "

Precedent regarding the reasoning of the tax bill

Among the precedents of the Supreme Court worthy of note is the Court of Cassation 16 December 2009 , n . 26330 , which stated that no reasons a settlement order issued as a result of liquidation pursuant to art. 36 -bis of Presidential Decree no. 600/1973 " folder on the assumption that there is no data concerning the non-recognition of a tax credit to L. 9,572,000 " .

In this case, the Inland Revenue had stated the reasons for the enrollment only able to appeal. This modus operandi , the Court has stated , it can not cure the lack of motivation of the folder , since the taxpayer must be put in a position to know the reasons for the tax claim as from the notification of the tax bill .

In the same vein , the Court of Cassation no. 22500 of 10 December 2012 , which showed that in the event that the tax bill was issued following a settlement to be effected pursuant to art. 36 -bis of Presidential Decree no. 600/1973 it is the first and only act by which the taxpayer is notified of the tax claim . If so , it is essential that the folder contains all the elements in order to make informed the taxpayer of the reasons the claim.

With regard to the case-law on the merits, it should be noted Provincial Tax Commission of Lecce n . 512/1/11 so that it is expressed : "This Commission recognizes in the opposite folder of payment a total absence of reason for the recovery of tax , not apparent in the simple word ' omitted or deficient payments ' , without any specification on what basis the required amount was due . "

Of note, with particular reference to the representation of the calculation of interest , Supreme Court 21 March 2012, n . 4516 . With the above-mentioned judgment, the Court confirmed the decision of the Regional Tax Commission , canceling the tax bill as a " folder is reported only the overall amount of interest due , without being shown as it has come to this calculation, not specifying individual aliquots taken as the basis of various annuities which in this case is worth emphasizing, since the finding reported to the tax year 1983 are calculated over 23 years . "

From here stoats concluded that " the work of the office was reconstructed through difficult investigations also due to the age of the matter that are not in competition to the taxpayer who saw thus violated his right of defense."

Other judgments of the Supreme Court are placed in a more restrictive sense . In particular , the Supreme Court n . 14376 of June 7, 2013 excludes a particular burden of motivation for the folder that ask for the payment of taxes as declared by the taxpayer and does not result in an adjustment to the results of the declaration.

Still, the Supreme Court no. 10033 of May 6, 2011 stated that the notice of payment , in the event of liquidation of the tax pursuant to Presidential Decree n . 600 of 1973 , art. 36a , is the act by which the taxpayer becomes aware for the first time the tax claim and as such must be substantiated. However, in the case of simple settlement of the tax on the basis of data supplied by the same taxpayer in the declaration, and if they are required surcharges and interest for late or non-payment , the taxpayer is already in a position to know the factual and legal reasons the tax claim , with the effect that the burden of motivation can be considered fulfilled by mere reference to the statement by itself.

Finally, according Cassation n . 7401 of 31 March 2011, the lack of motivation of the tax can not lead to a declaration of nullity when the folder was contested by the taxpayer which has been shown in this way to have full knowledge of the requirements of the notice, to have them punctually challenged , and failed to attach and specifically to test which has been in practice the prejudice that the defect in the act has determined its right of defense.

Source: Altalex (Leonardo Leo)   Click to listen highlighted text! Civil Cassation , sez. VI -T , Order No. 20211 03.09.2013 Order of 3 September 2013, n . 20211 , the Court of Cassation back to take care of the grounds of tax bill . It should be noted that the Ordinance does not include the facts behind the decision giving rise to the folder , such as whether or not descendant from a liquidation pursuant to art. 36 -bis of Presidential Decree no. 600/1973 . In addition, it is not clear what were the grounds on which the Inland Revenue has set its appeal to the Supreme Court .  That said, in this case , the Court , having heard the report of the Director -Rapporteur, rejects in private on the action brought by the Inland Revenue as the ruling has made ​​this assessment on the lack of any justification or explanation of the tax , which was to ascertain if it ever be challenged with the medium recall . In fact , they point to the judges, the affirmation of the trial court that the folder does not contain additional information that may hold if the reasons for the Administration could never be challenged with the medium recall Hence the conclusion that the indication of a omitted or insufficient payment does not constitute adequate grounds for a tax claim . The Supreme Court therefore argues that the appellate court has found in fact to the lack of any justification or explanation of the tax . In light of this , the Inland Revenue , unsuccessful on appeal, it should have contested quellaccertamento in fact not through recourse to the Supreme Court but through the remedy of revocation governed by. 64 of Legislative Decree no . N . 546/1992 and art. 395 Code of Civil Procedure The Court , however, does not specify a reason for revision could have been alleged by the tax . In relation to the case decided by the order in question , it is believed that revision could be claimed on the basis of n . 4 of Art. 395 , first paragraph , which allows the revision of the appeal if the sentence is the effect of an error of fact resulting from the acts or documents of the case. There is this error when the decision is based on the assumption of a fact the truth is met firmly excluded, or when the alleged non-existence of a fact the truth is positively established, and as much in one as in the other case if the he did not a moot point on which the sentence he spoke . Precedent regarding the reasoning of the tax bill Among the precedents of the Supreme Court worthy of note is the Court of Cassation 16 December 2009 , n . 26330 , which stated that no reasons a settlement order issued as a result of liquidation pursuant to art. 36 -bis of Presidential Decree no. 600/1973 folder on the assumption that there is no data concerning the non-recognition of a tax credit to L. 9,572,000 . In this case, the Inland Revenue had stated the reasons for the enrollment only able to appeal. This modus operandi , the Court has stated , it can not cure the lack of motivation of the folder , since the taxpayer must be put in a position to know the reasons for the tax claim as from the notification of the tax bill . In the same vein , the Court of Cassation no. 22500 of 10 December 2012 , which showed that in the event that the tax bill was issued following a settlement to be effected pursuant to art. 36 -bis of Presidential Decree no. 600/1973 it is the first and only act by which the taxpayer is notified of the tax claim . If so , it is essential that the folder contains all the elements in order to make informed the taxpayer of the reasons the claim. With regard to the case-law on the merits, it should be noted Provincial Tax Commission of Lecce n . 512/1/11 so that it is expressed : This Commission recognizes in the opposite folder of payment a total absence of reason for the recovery of tax , not apparent in the simple word omitted or deficient payments , without any specification on what basis the required amount was due . Of note, with particular reference to the representation of the calculation of interest , Supreme Court 21 March 2012, n . 4516 . With the above-mentioned judgment, the Court confirmed the decision of the Regional Tax Commission , canceling the tax bill as a folder is reported only the overall amount of interest due , without being shown as it has come to this calculation, not specifying individual aliquots taken as the basis of various annuities which in this case is worth emphasizing, since the finding reported to the tax year 1983 are calculated over 23 years . From here stoats concluded that the work of the office was reconstructed through difficult investigations also due to the age of the matter that are not in competition to the taxpayer who saw thus violated his right of defense. Other judgments of the Supreme Court are placed in a more restrictive sense . In particular , the Supreme Court n . 14376 of June 7, 2013 excludes a particular burden of motivation for the folder that ask for the payment of taxes as declared by the taxpayer and does not result in an adjustment to the results of the declaration. Still, the Supreme Court no. 10033 of May 6, 2011 stated that the notice of payment , in the event of liquidation of the tax pursuant to Presidential Decree n . 600 of 1973 , art. 36a , is the act by which the taxpayer becomes aware for the first time the tax claim and as such must be substantiated. However, in the case of simple settlement of the tax on the basis of data supplied by the same taxpayer in the declaration, and if they are required surcharges and interest for late or non-payment , the taxpayer is already in a position to know the factual and legal reasons the tax claim , with the effect that the burden of motivation can be considered fulfilled by mere reference to the statement by itself. Finally, according Cassation n . 7401 of 31 March 2011, the lack of motivation of the tax can not lead to a declaration of nullity when the folder was contested by the taxpayer which has been shown in this way to have full knowledge of the requirements of the notice, to have them punctually challenged , and failed to attach and specifically to test which has been in practice the prejudice that the defect in the act has determined its right of defense.   Source: Altalex (Leonardo Leo)