Subjectively False Invoices: Commentary on Judgment No. 16576 of 2023
The recent judgment No. 16576 of March 1, 2023, from the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications regarding tax crimes, particularly concerning the issuance of invoices for non-existent transactions. In a context where tax evasion is an increasingly relevant issue, the Court has established that it is possible to configure the crime even in cases of subjectively false invoicing, that is, when the tax operation has been effectively carried out, but does not correspond to the provider indicated in the invoice.
The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context
Italian law, particularly Article 8 of Law 10/03/2000 No. 74, strictly regulates the cases of tax fraud. The Court has, in fact, reiterated that subjectively false invoicing is punishable under current legislation. This implies that even if the service has been provided, but the provider indicated in the invoice does not correspond to the one who actually provided the service, the crime is still configured.
- Issuance of invoices for non-existent transactions.
- Subjectively false invoices and tax evasion.
- Possibility of penalties even in the absence of actual evasion.
Analysis of the Judgment's Principle
Issuance of invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions - "Subjectively" false invoices - Crime - Configurability - Reasons. In matters of tax crimes, the crime of issuing invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions is configurable even in cases of subjectively false invoicing, where the transaction subject to tax imposition has been effectively carried out and there is, however, no subjective correspondence between the provider indicated in the invoice or other fiscally relevant document and the legal entity that provided the service, as in such cases, it is still possible to achieve the illicit purpose indicated by the law, namely allowing third parties to evade income and value-added taxes. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the crime is configured even if the subject who provided the service has not been identified and in cases where it has not been established that there has been actual tax evasion).
This principle highlights how the legislator and jurisprudence consider the analysis of the subject issuing the invoice to be fundamental, rather than merely verifying the actual execution of the service. In fact, the crime of issuing false invoices is configured simply by allowing tax evasion, even in the absence of concrete evidence of evasion by the beneficiary subject.
Conclusions
Judgment No. 16576 of 2023 represents an important step forward in the fight against tax evasion, clarifying that criminal liability for issuing false invoices does not depend solely on actual evasion, but also on the mere possibility of it. For professionals and companies, it is crucial to pay attention to the accuracy of the issued invoices, in order to avoid significant criminal penalties and to ensure compliance with tax regulations. Vigilance and transparency in commercial operations have never been so relevant.
