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

Analysis of Judgment No. 30092/2024 of the Court of Cassation: Precautionary Measures and Undue Offsets

The recent judgment no. 30092 of the Court of Cassation, issued on April 19, 2024, addresses a matter of great relevance in the tax field: the application of personal precautionary measures in relation to the crime of undue offsetting of non-existent credits. In particular, the Court ruled on the case of A.A., the legal representative of the company "Macropharm Srl," accused of using non-existent tax credits, thus constituting a violation of tax regulations.

The context of the judgment

The central issue concerns the order of the Court of Caltanissetta that had imposed a temporary ban on conducting business activities against A.A. The Court had to examine whether there were serious indications of guilt that would justify such a precautionary measure. In particular, the interpretation of the threshold of punishability established by Article 10-quater of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, which sets a limit of 50,000 euros for the crime of undue offsetting, was contested.

The assessment of the amount of non-existent or undue credits must be unitary and comprehensive, as the division of the threshold for each individual tax is not permitted.

Analysis of the Court's reasoning

The Court clarified that the exceeding of the threshold of punishability must be calculated considering the total offsets made in a single year, regardless of the year to which the tax debts refer. This principle is fundamental to understanding the logic of the judgment. The erroneous interpretation by the Court, which believed it could divide the amounts by year, was corrected by the Cassation, which reiterated the necessity of evaluating the total amount of offsets.

The implications for the future

This judgment has significant implications not only for A.A. but also for all professionals and companies that operate in an increasingly stringent tax control environment. It is crucial to understand that the joint liability of the client in the case of service contracts does not automatically imply awareness of a tax offense by the client themselves. The Court recognized that the mere interposition of a contractor cannot, in itself, constitute proof of intent for the client.

  • Importance of the threshold of punishability
  • Joint liability and awareness of the crime
  • Need for a unitary interpretation of offsets

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 30092/2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important step forward in defining the boundaries of precautionary measures in the tax field. It clarifies that liability for undue offsets cannot be attributed without certain evidence of awareness and intent. This jurisprudential orientation offers greater protection to taxpayers, emphasizing the importance of a rigorous interpretation of tax regulations.