The Ruling No. 11690 of 2024: Reflections on Unconventional Evidence in Tax Proceedings

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 11690 of April 30, 2024, represents an important opportunity for reflection on the theme of unconventional evidence in tax proceedings. The Court established key principles regarding the usability of data acquired in non-traditional forms and the assessment by the judge of merit, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive evaluation of the evidential elements.

The Context of the Ruling

The ruling in question arises from a tax dispute related to an assessment of increased capital income on amounts held abroad. The Court overturned the merit decision that had denied evidentiary value to the data found on a seized computer, deeming them insufficient as unconventional evidence. This approach raised questions about the correct application of the rules regarding evidence by presumptions.

The Principle of the Ruling

In general. In tax proceedings, unconventional evidence and data acquired in forms other than those regulated, according to the rules of evidence by presumptions, are usable, with the judge of merit responsible for the evaluation, pursuant to Article 2729 of the Civil Code, regarding the occurrence of the requirements of gravity, precision, and consistency; it follows that a decision by which the judge limited himself to denying evidentiary value to the elements acquired in the proceedings, without verifying whether they, even if individually lacking evidentiary value, could not acquire it when evaluated as a whole, is subject to review in legitimacy.

The Court clarified that the judge must consider all circumstantial elements, not limiting himself to examining each piece of data in isolation. In this way, the judge of merit has the responsibility to evaluate whether, taken together, the acquired elements can assume evidentiary value.

Practical Implications

This ruling has several implications for tax disputes, including:

  • Recognition of unconventional evidence: The Court stated that unconventional data can be used, provided that the judge correctly assesses their relevance.
  • Systematic approach: A global analysis of the evidence is essential, avoiding the neglect of elements that, although individually weak, may be significant when considered in a broader context.
  • Greater responsibility for the judge of merit: The ruling emphasizes the importance of the judge's role in evaluating evidence, requiring adequate and well-articulated reasoning.

In conclusion, ruling No. 11690 of 2024 provides a clear indication of the need for a flexible and comprehensive approach in the analysis of evidence in tax proceedings, urging judges to consider not only the form but also the substance of the presented evidence.

Conclusions

The ruling of the Court of Cassation of April 30, 2024, represents a significant step towards greater recognition of unconventional evidence in the tax sector. Legal practitioners and taxpayers must pay attention to these indications, as the way data and clues are evaluated can substantially influence the outcomes of tax disputes. It is therefore essential to establish a constant dialogue between the parties involved, ensuring that every evidential element is considered in its entirety and in the right context.

Bianucci Law Firm