Tax matters are exclusively delegated to the Tax Justice Courts, as reformed in 2022.
The tax litigation process has its own rules codified in Legislative Decree 546/1996 and subsequent amendments. Unless otherwise provided, the rules of the Civil Procedure Code apply. The tax process allows for limited inquiry, which has only recently been expanded with the introduction of witness testimony, previously excluded. However, it allows for the extensive use of atypical evidence, such as evidence from criminal proceedings, other proceedings, or evidence acquired through legal means.
This highlights the importance of having a professional and a law firm structured to handle both tax and criminal defense. The flow of evidence between the two systems is particularly broad, considering that many situations have implications in both the tax administrative and criminal spheres. It is important to note that the criminal and tax proceedings have different rules and operate on different and parallel levels, with no possibility for one to influence the other, except for the possible transfer of evidence, the evaluation of which remains at the discretion of the respective judicial bodies. However, there are some coordination constraints between the two proceedings, such as the principle of specificity and the quantification of the tax debt and related charges for the existence of non-punishability or special mitigating factors provided by Legislative Decree 74/2000, which regulates tax criminal law.
The Court of Cassation represents the final level of jurisdiction where tax disputes can be brought, and only issues of legality, not merit, can be raised. Therefore, it is crucial that all relevant legal issues are raised or objected to at the lower levels of jurisdiction to avoid being precluded from raising them for the first time in the Court of Cassation.
If a national tax law and its interpretation are in conflict with European law (considered of superior rank by our Constitution), the defense can request, with a reasoned argument, the national judge to refer the case to the European Court of Justice. If the national judge deems the issue not manifestly unfounded, they send the case to the European court, initiating an ad hoc case to resolve the legal question.
If a tax law and its interpretation are in conflict with constitutional norms, the defense can request, with adequate motivation, the judge to refer the case to the Constitutional Court. If the question is not deemed manifestly unfounded, a constitutional legitimacy judgment is initiated before the same Court.
If the defense believes that one of the fundamental rights of a person has been violated and all domestic remedies have been exhausted, it is possible to appeal to the ECtHR. In tax and criminal matters, this generally occurs concerning fundamental rights that have been compromised during the exercise (deemed unlawful) of coercive powers, such as personal or premises searches, inspections of correspondence, etc., during tax audits or preliminary criminal investigations.
Copyright Stufano Tax | Legal | Corporate – 2014 – 2023