Commentary on Ordinance No. 10939 of 2024: Suspension of Collection and Validity of the Executive Title

Recently, the Court of Cassation issued Ordinance No. 10939 on April 23, 2024, concerning the suspension of collection by means of roles. This decision provides significant insights for taxpayers and legal professionals, as it clarifies the procedures for submitting suspension requests and the necessary requirements for their admissibility.

The Regulatory Context

The ruling aligns with the current legislation, particularly Article 1, paragraph 538, of Law No. 228 of 2012, which regulates the suspension of collection. According to this provision, the taxpayer has the right to request a suspension to obtain the automatic cancellation of the credit claim, provided that it is enforced in the absence of a valid executive title. This represents an important safeguard for the taxpayer, as it helps protect the principle of economic efficiency of the tax action and remedy communication defects between the creditor agency and the collection agent.

Analysis of the Judgment's Summary

Role - Suspension of collection - Article 1, paragraph 538, of Law No. 228 of 2012 - Purpose - Reasons - Causes potentially attributable to the creditor agency - Admissibility - Defects in collection activity - Exclusion - Consequences - Case. In terms of collection by means of roles, the taxpayer is granted the right to submit a suspension request aimed at obtaining the automatic cancellation of the credit claim, if enforced in the absence of a valid executive title, with the aim of safeguarding the principle of economic efficiency of the tax action and remedying communication defects between the creditor agency and the collection agent; it follows that only the cases of suspension specified in Article 1, paragraph 538, letter f), of Law 228 of 2012, as amended by Article 1 of Legislative Decree No. 159 of 2015, referring to the imposing agency or its credit, and not to the activities of the collection agent, are suitable for this purpose, to whom a summary evaluation of the requests remains entrusted in order to reject those that are clearly dilatory. (In this case, the Supreme Court annulled the ruling that had accepted the suspension request of the role solely for the irregular notification of the notice due to the collection agent's expiration from the activity referred to in Article 25 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973, without verifying the scope of the request and the documentation supporting the suspension request and its applicability to one of the normatively provided hypotheses).

This summary highlights how the Court emphasized the importance of a valid executive title in order to proceed with the collection of amounts owed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that suspension requests must exclusively refer to defects of the imposing agency and not to issues related to the activities of the collection agent. The decision to annul the previous ruling underscores the importance of a thorough analysis of suspension requests, emphasizing the need to evaluate the attached documentation and the scope of the request.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 10939 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the criteria for suspension of collection. It clarifies the access procedures to this protective measure for taxpayers, highlighting the necessity of a valid executive title as a fundamental prerequisite. It is essential that taxpayers are adequately informed of their rights and the means of defense in case of disputes over credit claims. The ruling, therefore, not only addresses a specific case but also offers a clearer and more structured regulatory framework for managing tax disputes.

Bianucci Law Firm