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

Cass. pen., Sez. III, Sent. n. 526/2025: Reflections on Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion

The recent ruling no. 526 of the Court of Cassation, issued on November 19, 2024, and filed on January 8, 2025, offers an important opportunity for reflection on criminal liability in cases of tax evasion, particularly regarding the role of de facto administrators and the thresholds of punishability established by current legislation. The decision is situated within a complex regulatory framework, governed by Legislative Decree no. 74 of 2000 and Legislative Decree no. 218 of 1997, and highlights some fundamental principles related to tax assessment and the liability of heirs.

The Case and the Ruling of the Court of Cassation

The case in question concerns A.A., heir of B.B., who was convicted for failing to submit the income tax return for the year 2015, resulting in tax evasion of over 155,000 euros. The Court of Appeal of Salerno had upheld the first instance conviction, but the Court of Cassation accepted A.A.'s appeal, highlighting significant errors in the assessment of the threshold of punishability and in the qualification of de facto administrator.

The Court of Cassation reiterated that the criminal judge is not bound by the amount of tax resulting from the assessment with adherence and must carefully evaluate the existence of the subjective element of the crime.

Legal Issues Raised

The ruling addresses in detail several legal aspects, including:

  • Exceeding the threshold of punishability: The Court emphasized that the assessment with adherence should not be automatically considered a cause of non-punishability, but the judge must evaluate whether the evaded tax exceeds the threshold of 50,000 euros.
  • Qualification of de facto administrator: The assessment of A.A.'s responsibility as a de facto administrator was called into question, highlighting that mere bookkeeping is not sufficient to attribute such a qualification.
  • Subjective element of the crime: The Court clarified that awareness of the declarative obligation is not sufficient to constitute the specific intent to evade, requiring a clear intention to evade taxes.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 526 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification on criminal liabilities in the tax field, emphasizing the need for careful and detailed evaluation by the judge. The issue of the threshold of punishability and the qualification of de facto administrator remain highly relevant topics for future jurisprudence and legal practice, requiring in-depth analysis and correct application of existing regulations. This case highlights the importance of adequate defense in tax matters, especially for those managing business inheritances and being called to account for unmet tax obligations.