• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section III, No. 43366 of 2024: Tax Evasion and Specific Intent

The judgment No. 43366 of the Court of Cassation dated November 27, 2024, addresses a particularly relevant issue in tax criminal law: the specific intent of tax evasion. The Court, rejecting the appeal of A.A., the legal representative of the company Tel Service Srl, confirmed the conviction for failure to submit tax returns, highlighting the necessity to demonstrate not only awareness of the filing obligation but also the intention to evade taxes.

The Case and the Appeal

A.A. had been convicted for failing to submit returns related to direct taxes and VAT for a significant amount. In his appeal, A.A. argued that his appointment as legal representative occurred only a few months before the deadlines for the returns and that he had delegated a professional for accounting matters.

The Court emphasized that relying on a professional does not exempt the legal representative from criminal liability for the failure to declare.

The Court deemed the grounds for appeal inadmissible, stating that the mere status of legal representative is not sufficient to exclude the specific intent of evasion. Therefore, the intention to evade taxes must be demonstrated through factual elements, such as the failure to pay due taxes.

Specific Intent and Criminal Liability

A crucial aspect of the judgment concerns the definition of the specific intent of evasion. The Court clarifies that the intent of evasion implies a deliberate will to evade tax payments and is not limited to mere awareness of the filing obligation. This approach is supported by previous case law, which highlights how mere omission does not automatically substantiate the charge of evasion.

  • Specific intent must be proven through concrete behaviors.
  • The subsequent failure to pay taxes is considered evidence of intent.
  • Criminal liability is personal and cannot be delegated, even to professionals.

Conclusions

The judgment No. 43366 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification on criminal liability in the matter of tax evasion, emphasizing that mere reliance on professionals does not exempt the legal representative from responsibility. The Court's approach underscores the importance of demonstrating the specific intent of evasion, clearly distinguishing between awareness of the obligation and the intention to evade taxes. This judicial orientation is fundamental for understanding the application of tax criminal laws and the protection of state interests.