Tax Liability and General Intent: Analysis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court No. 4973/2022
The ruling of the Supreme Court No. 4973 of 2022 provides an important reflection on the liability of the taxpayer concerning the failure to declare income. This case, which involved L. L., highlights the legal implications related to entrusting tax matters to professionals and the role of intent in the commission of tax crimes.
The Case and Judicial Decisions
In this case, the Court of Appeal of Turin upheld the first-instance conviction for failure to declare by L. L., who had not submitted the income declaration for the year 2014, evading significant taxes. The defense argued the non-existence of general intent, asserting that relying on an accountant exempted the taxpayer from liability. However, the Court reiterated that the obligation to submit the declaration rests directly on the taxpayer, even if the latter delegates such duties to third parties.
The mere fact of having entrusted a professional with the task of preparing and submitting the declaration does not exempt the taxpayer from criminal liability for failure to declare.
General Intent and Jurisprudence
The Court clarified that general intent, for the configuration of the crime of failure to declare, can be inferred not only from the extent of the omission but also from the taxpayer's awareness of the amount of taxes owed. In particular, the fact that L. L. subsequently submitted other declarations irregularly reinforced the evidence of his intention to evade taxes. Established jurisprudence states that criminal liability for tax crimes is personal and cannot be delegated.
- Obligation to submit the income declaration directly on the taxpayer.
- Delegation to professionals does not exempt from criminal liability.
- Awareness of what is owed is a key element for general intent.
Conclusions
The judgment No. 4973/2022 of the Supreme Court represents an important precedent in Italian jurisprudence regarding tax crimes. It emphasizes the necessity for taxpayers to always be informed and aware of their tax obligations, even when relying on professionals for the management of their affairs. This decision serves as a reminder that delegation cannot replace personal responsibility and that oversight of professionals' actions is crucial to avoid unpleasant legal consequences.
