Appeal of the Extract of Role: Analysis of Ordinance No. 11473 of 2024

The Ordinance No. 11473 of April 29, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications on the methods of appealing the extract of role pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 4-bis, of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973. This ruling is particularly significant for taxpayers who wish to contest payment notices, highlighting the necessary conditions for the appeal to be considered admissible.

The Regulatory Context

Italian law allows for the direct appeal of the extract of role, but under specific conditions. In particular, the invoked prejudice must be related to credit items arising before the appeal is made. This aspect is crucial, as the Court has established that the interest to act must be demonstrated; otherwise, the appeal risks being declared inadmissible.

The Conditions for Admissibility

According to the ordinance, the prejudice must relate to a compensation exception, as provided by Article 48-bis of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973. This implies that the debtor may oppose credits against public entities, but only if such credits arose before contesting the extract of role. In this case, the Court deemed the appeal of a taxpayer inadmissible for failing to demonstrate the interest to act, as the alleged prejudice referred to a credit that arose subsequently.

Direct appeal of the extract of role - Article 12, paragraph 4-bis, of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973 - Standing - Conditions - Characteristics of the prejudice - Previous credit items - Foundation - Case law. For the purposes of the admissibility of the direct appeal of the content of the extract of role under Article 12, paragraph 4-bis, of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973, the invoked prejudice - if consisting of the advance opposability of the compensation exception (ex Article 48-bis of the aforementioned Presidential Decree), based on the payment notice not notified or invalidly notified, in relation to credits of the debtor against public entities - must pertain to credit items arising before the appeal against the extract of role and independent of it. (In this case, the Supreme Court deemed the direct appeal made by the taxpayer inadmissible for failing to demonstrate the interest to act, having alleged the prejudice in relation to a credit that arose only after the appeal was filed and as a result of the liquidation of judicial costs in their favor contained in the favorable first-instance ruling, which was even more precarious as it was reformed by the appellate judge).

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 11473 of 2024 represents an important point of reference for those wishing to oppose the extract of role. It is essential that taxpayers are aware of the necessary conditions for the admissibility of the appeal, particularly regarding the demonstration of the interest to act and the correct timing of the credits. Jurisprudence continues to evolve and clarify the methods of defending taxpayers' rights, making continual updates and adequate legal advice necessary.

Bianucci Law Firm