Tax Liability and General Intent: Analysis of Cass. Pen. Ruling no. 4973/2022

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. 4973 of 2022 offers an important reflection on the taxpayer's liability regarding the omission of tax returns. This case, which involved L. L., highlights the legal implications related to entrusting tax matters to professionals and the role of intent in committing tax offenses.

The Case and Judicial Decisions

In this case, the Court of Appeal of Turin confirmed the first-instance conviction for omission of tax returns by L. L., who had failed to file his income tax return for the year 2014, evading taxes for a significant amount. The defense argued for the absence of general intent, stating that entrusting the matter to an accountant exempted the taxpayer from liability. However, the Court reiterated that the obligation to file the return falls directly on the taxpayer, even if the latter delegates these duties to third parties.

The mere fact of having entrusted a professional with the task of preparing and filing the return does not exempt the taxpayer from criminal liability for failure to file.

General Intent and Case Law

The Court clarified that general intent, for the commission of the offense of omission of tax returns, can be inferred not only from the extent of the omission but also from the taxpayer's awareness of the amount of taxes due. In particular, the fact that L. L. had subsequently filed other returns irregularly strengthened the proof of his intention to evade taxes. Established case law states that criminal liability for tax offenses is personal and cannot be delegated.

• Obligation to file income tax returns directly incumbent on the taxpayer.
• Delegation to professionals does not exempt from criminal liability.
• Awareness of what is due is a key element for general intent.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 4973/2022 of the Court of Cassation represents an important precedent in Italian jurisprudence concerning tax offenses. It emphasizes the need for taxpayers to be always informed and aware of their tax obligations, even when they use professionals to manage their affairs. This decision serves as a reminder that delegation cannot replace personal responsibility and that oversight of professionals' actions is fundamental to avoid unpleasant legal consequences.