The Supreme Court Ruling on the Crime of Fraudulent Declaration: An In-Depth Analysis
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, issued on March 14, 2024, has raised important questions regarding tax violations and, in particular, the configurability of the crime of fraudulent declaration through the use of invoices for non-existent transactions. In this article, we analyze the content of the ruling and its implications for the companies involved, aiming to clarify some regulatory and jurisprudential aspects.
The Case Analyzed by the Supreme Court
In the case at hand, A.A. and B.B., legal representatives of "C.C. E B.B. Snc", were convicted by the Court of Appeal of Cagliari for having submitted tax returns containing fictitious passive elements, using invoices for non-existent transactions. The Court confirmed the criminal liability of the appellants, highlighting that the invoices used for the purchase of grapes had been issued at prices significantly higher than market rates.
The contested fact does not exist as the invoices cannot be classified as "invoices for non-existent transactions".
The Reasons of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, overturning the appeal ruling, argued that the invoices issued by "Azienda Agricola A.A. E D.D." could not be classified as "invoices for non-existent transactions" since the purchases had indeed been made, even if at prices higher than market rates. This aspect is crucial: the Supreme Court clarified that not all transactions with incongruous prices automatically constitute a criminal violation. In fact, although the invoices may reflect an excessive price, this does not necessarily imply that the transaction was not carried out.
Regulatory and Jurisprudential Implications
This ruling fits into a broader debate on the distinction between legitimate tax planning and abuse of rights. The Court recalled the jurisprudence, emphasizing that a taxpayer has the right to choose the most favorable tax operation, as long as it does not constitute an attempt at fraud. This principle is enshrined in Article 10-bis of Law No. 212 of 2000, which protects legitimate tax planning choices.
- The ruling clarifies that invoices issued for transactions actually carried out cannot be automatically considered fraudulent.
- It reiterates the need to differentiate between market price and the price actually paid, as well as the concept of "uneconomicness".
- It strengthens the protection of taxpayers' legitimate tax choices according to current regulations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ruling of the Supreme Court represents an important victory for the certainty of law and for the correct interpretation of tax regulations. It clarifies that mere price incongruity is not sufficient to configure a crime of fraudulent declaration; rather, it is necessary to consider the real existence of transactions and the rights of taxpayers to make tax choices within the law. Companies must, therefore, pay attention to documenting their transactions and correctly applying tax regulations, avoiding potential disputes with the Tax Administration.
