The recent Order No. 23084 of August 26, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarification regarding the application of Value Added Tax (VAT) in cases of transfer of goods from the principal to the commission agent. This ruling, which involves an online resale case, has raised relevant questions on the tax treatment of sales operations by commission agents, especially in the context of e-commerce.
The Court, in its verdict, referred to the provisions of art. 2, paragraph 2, no. 3, of Presidential Decree No. 633 of 1972, which governs the application of VAT. In particular, the order establishes that the transfer of goods from the principal to the commission agent is not excluded by the fact that the latter resells the goods on an online sales website, negotiating the transfer and price of the goods in their own name and right. This aspect is fundamental, as it clarifies that even online resale does not alter the configuration of the transfer of goods within the VAT framework.
In general. For the purposes of applying VAT pursuant to art. 2, paragraph 2, no. 3, of Presidential Decree No. 633 of 1972, the transfer of goods from the principal to the commission agent is not excluded by the circumstance that the latter proceeds to resell the goods on an online sales website, negotiating the transfer and price of the goods in their own name and right.
This summary highlights how jurisprudence tends to consider the nature of the commission contract in its entirety, without being influenced by the fact that the commission agent operates through digital platforms. This means that commission agents, despite having the right to sell the goods, are not exempt from the VAT obligations provided for by Italian legislation.
In conclusion, Order No. 23084 of 2024 represents an important milestone in understanding the VAT treatment for commission operations, especially in the context of online commerce. Businesses must be aware of the tax implications of their activities and ensure they correctly fulfill their VAT obligations. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and this case demonstrates the importance of staying updated on regulations and rulings that can affect daily business operations.