Fiscal controls can vary in intensity, ranging from simple questionnaires (where individuals are asked if they have had dealings with other taxpayers) to cross-checking controls (where documents from one taxpayer are obtained from another entity) to office inspections, where the taxpayer is summoned to the inspection authority’s offices with relevant documentation. However, the most invasive controls are undoubtedly on-site verifications at the taxpayer’s premises. In such cases, the Tax Agency and the Financial Guard have very penetrating coercive powers that derogate fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to domicile, personal freedom, and confidentiality of correspondence.
In these cases, it is crucial for the company to appoint a professional who can assist during the verification operations conducted by the Tax Agency or the Financial Guard.
The professional will be the one to interact with the inspection authority, overseeing the use of powers and ensuring that the limits and conditions established by the law are not exceeded. They will provide the requested clarifications, evidence, and defense arguments on behalf of the company, ensuring that the reconstruction of facts and their interpretation takes into account the defense’s perspective and occurs in full respect of the right to a genuine adversarial process.
This is significantly useful in drafting the final document (typically a report or minutes of findings), which is then sent to the competent authority for tax assessment and, in cases of tax offenses, also to the judicial authorities. The fact that the defense of the taxpayer, along with all the evidence and arguments supporting it, is fully represented in the minutes of findings, enables the assessing authority and the judicial authorities to evaluate the conclusions reached by the inspection authority with greater objectivity.
The tax system allows taxpayers to use the instrument of voluntary disclosure (ravvedimento operoso) to rectify errors and violations. The benefits of spontaneous regularization range from a significant reduction in penalties to the acquisition of the right to non-punishability under criminal law or, if the voluntary disclosure occurs after the commencement of inspection or audit activities, the recognition of a special mitigating factor resulting in a one-third reduction of the penalty. Furthermore, the complete payment of the debt, including interest and reduced penalties, represents a necessary condition to access the alternative plea bargaining procedure (which implies an additional one-third reduction in the penalty).
The settlement agreement, also known as “accertamento con adesione” in Italian, is an important conflict resolution tool introduced in the tax system since 1997.
It involves the possibility of resolving a tax dispute through a mutually agreed settlement before resorting to judicial appeal. The initiative can be taken either by the taxpayer’s defense or by the Tax Agency itself.
The process typically involves a series of adversarial meetings between the parties, which culminate in a proposal. If the proposal is accepted by both parties, it is formalized, and the dispute is resolved. If not, the taxpayer may appeal against the assessment issued by the Tax Agency.
Self-revision, also known as “autotutela” in Italian, is a specific mechanism in administrative law that allows for the cancellation or revision of a previously issued administrative act due to pre-existing or subsequent legal reasons. This mechanism is typically invoked when the time limits for challenging the tax assessment have expired or when an unfavorable court judgment has become final.
Autotutela allows the administrative authority to intervene autonomously to eliminate the prejudicial effects of unlawful acts. It enables the administration to rectify its own mistakes or actions that are deemed to be contrary to the law.
Copyright Stufano Tax | Legal | Corporate – 2014 – 2023