Commentary on Judgment No. 16006 of 2024: Coercive Collection and Third-Party Opposition
Judgment No. 16006 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, serves as an important reference in the context of coercive collection and third-party oppositions. Specifically, the case at hand concerns the need to prove ownership of an asset in the event of movable execution initiated by the collection agent. The decision precisely clarifies the evidentiary limitations in such situations, offering food for thought for professionals and taxpayers.
Context of the Judgment
The Court, presided over by F. D. S. and reported by G. F., rejected the opposition of a third party, T. (PERSICHINO C.), against the movable execution initiated by A. for the collection of taxes. The central issue was whether the opposing third party had provided the necessary proof to demonstrate ownership of the asset subject to execution, in accordance with the limitations provided by the legal system.
Coercive collection - Third-party opposition - Evidentiary limitations - Proof of asset ownership - Judgment, public deed, or authenticated private writing - Necessity. In a third-party opposition against movable execution initiated by the collection agent, proof of asset ownership is subject to the limitations set forth in Article 63 (formerly Article 65) of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973, which requires a public deed or an authenticated private writing dated prior to the year to which the tax registered in the roll refers, or a final and binding judgment, rendered on claims filed prior to the same year.
Evidentiary Limitations
The Court emphasized that, according to Article 63 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973, to effectively oppose movable execution, it is necessary to present a public deed or an authenticated private writing. These documents must be dated prior to the year to which the tax registered in the roll refers. This means that, in the absence of such evidence, the third-party opposition is inadequate and cannot be accepted.
- Necessity of a public deed or authenticated private writing.
- Date prior to the tax year.
- Final and binding judgment as a valid alternative.
Conclusions
In conclusion, Judgment No. 16006 of 2024 represents an important clarification for all those involved in coercive collection procedures who intend to oppose such actions. The need to comply with the evidentiary limitations established by the regulations is fundamental to ensuring the legitimacy of third-party oppositions. Professionals and taxpayers must therefore pay particular attention to the documentation to be submitted to avoid having their requests rejected.
