Member Spotlight: PCV, Cyprus

This summary outlines how tax disputes arise and proceed in Italy, covering the self-assessment system and taxpayer registration, how the tax authority reviews and challenges returns, the treatment of tax fraud, the conduct of audits, options for resolving disputes before litigation, the appeal process through the tax courts, and the penalties and areas of dispute taxpayers are most likely to encounter.

Tax Registration

In Italy, every individual and legal entity receives a tax identification number. Legal entities and partnerships are always assigned a VAT number, while individuals receive one only if they engage in business or self-employment activities, not for salaried employment. Once a taxpayer holds a VAT number, the tax authority is fully aware of that person's existence and economic activity.

Self-Assessment and Amending Returns

The Italian system operates on self-assessment: taxpayers prepare and file their own annual returns, and the tax authority has five years from the following year to review the return and challenge any errors or omissions. A late challenge is null and void, though the taxpayer must still formally seek its annulment through an administrative appeal or legal action.

Returns may be amended to report higher income at any time before an assessment notice is served, substantially reducing potential penalties, or amended to report lower income, subject to specific time limits.

Assessment Notices and Time Limits

The tax authority must issue a reasoned assessment notice that sets out the factual and legal grounds for the challenge, which provision was violated and why, and separately justify any related penalties. In principle, notices must be issued within five years of the filing year (a 2025 return can be assessed until December 31, 2031).

Notices issued later can still be challenged: the taxpayer files a self-protection request for annulment and, failing that, a formal appeal within 60 days, citing the expiration of the deadline.

Tax Fraud

Tax fraud is a criminal, not an administrative, matter, defined by two articles of criminal tax law that cover the use of false invoices (documents recording costs for services never rendered) and other deceptive practices intended to mislead the authorities. It is punished severely, and if charges are filed, the deadlines for serving assessment notices are doubled. It is particularly relevant internationally—for instance, regarding management fees, where Italian companies can struggle to obtain precise supporting documentation for intercompany services. Fraud investigations are conducted by the local public prosecutor, assisted by the Guardia di Finanza under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and may involve restrictions on personal liberty and the seizure of assets. Tax and criminal proceedings run in parallel and both require careful handling

Audit Conduct and Standards

There is no formal code of conduct for audits beyond a general duty of fair cooperation. The Guardia di Finanza has issued a manual outlining audit procedures, and taxpayer rights are set out in the Taxpayer's Charter. Audit reports must invite the taxpayer to provide documentation, note the right to be assisted by a tax lawyer or Chartered Accountant, and state that withheld documentation cannot later be used in court. Audits now typically focus on three main risk areas for multinationals: transfer pricing, interest/dividend/royalty payments and beneficial ownership, and intercompany services.

During audits, inspectors may request any relevant documents, including those from foreign subsidiaries via international information exchange; a refusal generally bars later use of those documents in court. Requests to third parties to cross-check data (e.g., verifying that invoices were recorded by the issuer) are also routinely permitted.

Pre-Litigation Settlement Options

Before litigation, taxpayers have three main options: accept the audit report and pay in full to secure a significant penalty reduction; take voluntary corrective action on specific issues; or negotiate a settlement with the tax authority ("accertamento con adesione"). If none of these options succeed, the only remaining route is the courts, where judicial settlement may still be attempted. The audit relationship is governed by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights; taxpayers should always respond carefully and in writing. Auditors may remain on the taxpayer's premises for up to 30 days (extendable to 60), though in practice the overall audit, including off-site document review, often takes three to four months.

The Appeal Process

A taxpayer has 60 days from the date of service of an assessment notice to appeal, first to the Revenue Agency that issued it and then, within 30 days, to the Tax Court of First Instance. The appeal must include all arguments at the outset, as further objections cannot be added later. First-instance hearings in Milan take about nine months; the losing party may then appeal to the Second-Instance Tax Court and, finally, to the Court of Cassation, which reviews only legal principles and the soundness of reasoning.

The Tax Court is an independent judicial body covering all tax and related charges. Hearings and judgments are public, and Court of Cassation decisions are published on its website. The procedure is mainly written, with only brief oral argument; the appeal must concisely set out procedural and substantive objections, which may later be clarified—but not expanded—in further briefs. Written documentary evidence is admissible; witness testimony is not generally central, though it can matter in specific disputes, such as demonstrating non-payment.

Burden of Proof

On the burden of proof: the tax authority must justify its challenge in detail (e.g., explaining why an expense should not be considered business-related), while the taxpayer must substantiate the item's legitimacy and show that the authority's findings are unreasonable; the authority cannot rely on generic, unsupported challenges.

Duration and Payment Obligations

Proceedings can be lengthy—up to about 12 years from assessment to a Court of Cassation decision in complex cases. Upon assessment, taxpayers must pay one-third of the additional tax claimed; a stay of payment is possible but difficult to obtain, requiring both urgency (periculum in mora) and a reasonable likelihood of success (fumus boni iuris), and is particularly hard to secure for large corporations, banks, or insurers.

Representation, Costs, and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Representation before the first two levels of the tax courts must be by qualified professionals, and for cassation proceedings, by an attorney qualified before the Court of Cassation. It is advisable to use a Chartered Accountant and a tax lawyer together. The losing party generally bears the costs of the proceedings. There are two levels of tax adjudication before the Court of Cassation.

For international disputes, particularly transfer pricing, arbitration (conventional or EU) is available to avoid double taxation. Purely domestic disputes have no alternative to litigation apart from mechanisms like "accertamento con adesione."

Penalties

Penalties for additional assessed tax are generally 70% of the tax due, plus interest. Penalties may be mitigated or waived in cases of objective legal uncertainty, assessed on a case-by-case basis; for transfer pricing specifically, penalties can be avoided by preparing appropriate documentation in advance.

Outlook

Looking ahead, the main areas expected to generate disputes are tax avoidance (abuse of right), transfer pricing, and beneficial ownership. No single area is seen as uniquely difficult, though the relationship with tax authorities remains complex: local offices are sometimes aggressive, rely on one-sided ministerial circular interpretations while disregarding contrary case law, and case law itself is not always fully consistent.

For more information, contact:

Paolo Comuzzi

pcomuzzi@lawal.it

Lawal Legal & Tax Advisory

Globalaw, a global Band 1 Chambers-ranked network of approximately 80 independent law firms in more than 60 countries, announces a strategic collaboration with Legora, a leading legal AI platform. This first-of-its-kind collaboration between Legora and a global network of law firms gives Globalaw members exclusive access to AI capabilities that deliver innovative solutions for their firms and clients.

“AI is intensifying competition in the legal industry, and a responsible but forward-looking approach to the adoption of technology-enabled legal services is paramount,” said Peter J. Brown, Globalaw President and Partner at Edwards, Kenny & Bray. “Firms that know how to leverage advanced technology have a distinct competitive advantage. That’s why Globalaw is excited to introduce Legora across the network and empower members to strategically implement AI solutions designed specifically to elevate the way attorneys and law firms work.”

Globalaw’s innovative approach is a hallmark of its 30-year history, underscored by an enduring commitment to equipping its members with game-changing technology and resources. As law firm investment in AI escalates, membership in Globalaw becomes even more valuable as its collaboration with Legora fosters knowledge sharing and capability building, enabling members to deploy AI tools more quickly and with greater confidence.

"Globalaw's members represent some of the most respected independent firms in the world, and this collaboration reflects a shared belief that AI should make lawyers more effective, not replace their judgment," said Linda Björkenheim, Head of Partnerships at Legora. "By bringing Legora's platform to the Globalaw network, we're giving member firms a faster path to adopting AI in a way that's rigorous, secure, and built around how lawyers actually work, so they can spend more time on what clients value most."

About Legora

Legora is the agentic operating system for legal work, supporting lawyers in research, review, and drafting across complex matters. It is used by more than 100,000 legal professionals at more than 1,200 leading law firms and in-house legal teams across over 50 markets.

About Globalaw

Founded in 1994, Globalaw is a global Band 1 Chambers-ranked leading network of approximately 80 independent law firms and 4,000 lawyers in over 60 countries. Our mission is to foster seamless legal collaboration among member firms and to help them deliver high-quality, cost-effective solutions to their clients worldwide. We take pride in our commitment to excellence, global reach, and innovative approach to legal services. Visit www.globalaw.net to learn more.

Media Contact:

Jaime Luckey

marketing@globalaw.net

India’s approach to personal data protection has undergone a decisive shift. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, read with accompanying Rules, 2025 (collectively, the “DPDPA”), is currently being implemented in India in a phased manner. Once operational (by May 2027) it will apply to all businesses processing personal data in connection with any goods or service offerings in India – including offshore entities.

While India’s DPDPA draws inspiration from the EU GDPR, businesses should note that it introduces terminology, rights and roles unique to its framework. The DPDPA operates on a binary consent regime – where personal data may only be processed with the individual’s explicit consent or for specified “certain legitimate uses.” Data Fiduciaries (entities determining means and purposes of processing personal data) are required to discharge comprehensive obligations under the DPDPA, with non-compliance entailing significant penalties (to the tune of $25 million).

For Fiduciaries, formal Data Processing Agreements comprise a statutory requirement as well as a practical necessity – since they bear non-delegable statutory liability for the Data Processors they engage.

The DPDPA’s implementation will place India alongside a growing number of APAC jurisdictions that provide for extraterritorial application of data protection laws. For multinationals operating in India, the regulatory divergence between India and other data protection regimes, including in the EU or APAC, may present immediate and material compliance challenges.

Key Compliance Considerations

Given the extensive compliance requirements under the DPDPA and its structural divergences with other data protection frameworks, multinational businesses operating in India should engage qualified counsel at the earliest to determine their specific roles and cross-border obligations under the DPDPA. Carefully structured and interoperable Data Processing Agreements, in particular, may serve as a practical compliance pathway for businesses navigating obligations across multiple jurisdictions.

Our lawyers advise clients on DPDPA compliance, cross-border data transfer arrangements, and DPA structuring. If your organization is seeking clarity on its obligations under India’s evolving data protection regime, please contact our member firm identified below.

For more information, contact:

Ashneet Hanspal

ashneet.hanspal@ahlawatassociates.in

Ahlawat & Associates

Globalaw is pleased to announce its expansion into Honduras with the addition of LegalTech Consulting Firm!

LegalTech offers multidisciplinary legal services in Labor and Administrative Law, Civil and Commercial Law, Tax Law, Corporate and Business Consulting and Judicial and Extrajudicial Representation.

LegalTech's professionals have served on the Boards of Directors, General Management, Human Resources, and Financial and Administrative Management teams of national and international companies, as well as banking institutions, social organizations, and state-owned enterprises.

For more information, visit https://legaltechcf.com/.