Analysis of the Ordinance No. 1144 of 2025: Effect of Judgement in Tax Proceedings

The ruling No. 1144 of January 16, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue for Italian tax law: the effect of a criminal acquittal judgement in tax proceedings. This ordinance is set within the context of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, reformed by Legislative Decree No. 87 of 2024, and clearly establishes that the irrevocable criminal trial acquittal judgement has the effect of res judicata in tax proceedings, with some important exclusions.

The Regulatory Context

The crux of the issue is represented by Article 21-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, which introduces significant changes regarding the effectiveness of criminal judgements in tax proceedings. The provision essentially states that a criminal acquittal judgement, once it becomes irrevocable, can be used as evidence in tax proceedings. However, the Court of Cassation clarifies that this does not apply in the case of judgements issued during the preliminary hearing.

Article 21-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000 - Irrevocable criminal trial acquittal judgement - Effect of res judicata in tax proceedings - Acquittal hypotheses in the preliminary hearing - Exclusion - Reasons. Article 21-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, introduced by Legislative Decree No. 87 of 2024, which recognizes the effect of res judicata in tax proceedings for the irrevocable criminal trial acquittal judgement, does not apply, by explicit choice of the legislator and due to the different evidentiary content underlying the decision, in cases where a definitive judgement is pronounced by the investigating judge, even if it bears the wording "because the fact does not exist".

Distinction Between Trial and Preliminary Judgements

The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the different types of judgements. Trial judgements, resulting from a complete process with debate and contradiction, offer a level of certainty and evidence that is not comparable to that of judgements issued in the preliminary phase. This is because preliminary judgements are not always the result of an in-depth analysis of the merits, but may only reflect a superficial assessment of the fact.

  • Trial judgements: greater evidentiary certainty.
  • Preliminary judgements: limited assessment of the merits.
  • Recognition of the effect of res judicata only for the former.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 1144 of 2025 represents an important clarification in the field of tax and criminal law, highlighting how Italian legislation aims to ensure a balance between the rights of taxpayers and the needs for tax fraud detection. The distinction between trial and preliminary judgements is not merely technical but has significant repercussions on the dynamics of tax proceedings, reinforcing the necessity for a rigorous and well-defined approach in recognizing the effectiveness of criminal judgements in the context of tax disputes.

Bianucci Law Firm