Three years following the Tamerice decision, the Italian Supreme Court seems to have definitively acknowledged that Article 20 of the law on registration tax does not constitute a general anti abuse rule. Last December’s decisions confirm this principle of law and go even further by stating that – notably – Article 20 is a simple rule of interpretation. Accordingly, it cannot be used to counteract the abuse of tax laws, which can be only tackled by the new general anti abuse rule laid down in Article 10-bis of law No. 212 of 2000. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 20 raises some concerns since it does not appear consistent with the structure of the registration tax nor with the history and the rationale of Article 20 itself

A tre anni dalla sentenza Tamerice, la Corte di Cassazione sembra essersi attestata sulla natura non antielusiva dell’art. 20 t.u. registro. Le sentenze dello scorso dicembre confermano questo principio e ne stabiliscono un altro, di notevole importanza, secondo il quale l’art. 20, norma d’interpretazione degli atti, non può essere usata per contrastare condotte abusive, oggi punibili solo ai sensi e nei limiti dell’art. 10-bis, l. 212/00. Tuttavia, residuano perplessità sull’interpretazione dell’art. 20 adottata dalla Cassazione, che non sembra coerente con la struttura dell’imposta né con la funzione della norma, guardata anche in una prospettiva storica

Brevi note sullo stato della giurisprudenza intorno all'art. 20 del t.u. registro

Canè, D
2016-01-01

Abstract

Three years following the Tamerice decision, the Italian Supreme Court seems to have definitively acknowledged that Article 20 of the law on registration tax does not constitute a general anti abuse rule. Last December’s decisions confirm this principle of law and go even further by stating that – notably – Article 20 is a simple rule of interpretation. Accordingly, it cannot be used to counteract the abuse of tax laws, which can be only tackled by the new general anti abuse rule laid down in Article 10-bis of law No. 212 of 2000. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 20 raises some concerns since it does not appear consistent with the structure of the registration tax nor with the history and the rationale of Article 20 itself
2016
Imposta di registro; atti collegati; art. 20 d.p.r. 131/1986; abuso del diritto
Canè, D
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Canè_Brevi note sullo stato della giurisprudenza intorno all’art. 20 del T.U. registro_Rass. trib._3_2016.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 420.78 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
420.78 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/2141269
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact