Order No. 10985 of 2024: Clarifications on Domicile in Tax Proceedings

The recent order no. 10985 of April 23, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding the elected domicile and notification procedures in tax proceedings. In particular, the ruling emphasizes the responsibilities of the parties concerning the communication of domicile changes, highlighting the importance of correctly following the procedures to avoid issues in the litigation.

The Elected Domicile and Changes

The order addresses the issue of the elected domicile, specifying that, according to Article 17, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 546 of 1992, it is the party's duty to communicate any changes to their domicile. These changes become effective against the opposing parties from the tenth day following the notification of the change report. However, the election of domicile at the office of a lawyer serves a limited function, being merely an indication of the attorney's office location.

  • Communication duty for autonomously elected domicile
  • Function of the domicile at the lawyer's office
  • Responsibility of the notifier in finding the new domicile

Notification Duty and Search for New Address

The Court clarifies that the domiciled attorney is not obliged to communicate the change of address of their office. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the notifier to carry out the necessary searches to identify the new notification location, even in the absence of formal communication from the opposing party. This aspect is crucial to ensure the proper continuation of the tax proceedings and to prevent formal errors from compromising the rights of the parties involved.

Place of notifications - Elected domicile - Changes - Notification duty to the opposing party - Limits - Domicile with any lawyer - Change of professional address - Notification - Search - Duty of the notifier - Basis. In tax proceedings, the duty to communicate changes, which become effective against the constituted opposing parties from the tenth day following the notification of the change report of the elected domicile or residence or office, as per Article 17, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 546 of 1992, is provided for the autonomously elected domicile by the party, while the election of domicile made by the same at the office of any lawyer, pursuant to Article 12 of the aforementioned legislative decree, has the mere function of indicating the location of the attorney's office; it follows that the domiciled attorney does not have the duty to communicate the change of address of their office, and it is, instead, the duty of the notifier to carry out appropriate searches to identify the new notification place, should the one known to them have changed, with the notification needing to be made to the actual domicile of the attorney even if there has been no formal communication of the transfer to the opposing party.

Conclusions

In conclusion, order no. 10985 of 2024 represents an important clarification tool for the parties involved in a tax dispute. It reiterates the importance of complying with the rules regarding domicile and notifications, emphasizing that the responsibility to communicate changes lies with the interested party. It is therefore crucial that the parties are aware of their responsibilities and take action to ensure the correctness of communications, thus avoiding potential future disputes.

Bianucci Law Firm