Facilitated Settlement and Tax Assessment Notices: The Court of Cassation with Order No. 17584 of 2025 Clarifies Appealability

In the dynamic landscape of tax law, rulings from the Court of Cassation serve as a compass for taxpayers and practitioners. Order No. 17584, filed on June 30, 2025, offers crucial clarifications on accessing facilitated settlements for tax assessment notices arising from automated checks. This decision, which saw the State Attorney General's Office (A.) and a taxpayer (C.) in opposition, is of significant importance for anyone intending to utilize "tax peace" measures and understand their defense rights.

Facilitated Settlement and Automated Checks

Facilitated settlement, or "tax peace," is a legislative instrument for resolving tax liabilities with the tax authorities under favorable conditions (Article 6 of Decree-Law No. 119/2018, converted by Law No. 136/2018). The central issue concerns notices issued following automated checks (Article 36-bis of Presidential Decree No. 600/1973), often preceded by a "notice of irregularity" or "amicable notice." The crucial question was whether the failure to contest such a notice precluded facilitated settlement and the appeal of the subsequent tax assessment notice.

The Amicable Notice: A Faculty, Not a Preclusion

The Court of Cassation, rejecting the appeal of the State Attorney General's Office, confirmed that litigation concerning the appeal of a tax assessment notice issued under automated checks falls fully within the scope of disputes eligible for facilitated settlement. The core of the decision lies in the nature of the amicable notice.

In the context of facilitated settlement, litigation concerning the appeal of a tax assessment notice issued under automated checks, pursuant to Article 36-bis of Presidential Decree No. 600 of 1973, gives rise to a dispute that can be settled under Article 6 of Decree-Law No. 119 of 2018, converted by Law No. 136 of 2018, even if the aforementioned notice was preceded by the notification of a notice of irregularity (so-called amicable notice), given that the appeal of such an act is merely optional, as it is not included in the list of acts specified in Article 19 of Legislative Decree No. 546 of 1992. Therefore, in case of failure to appeal, the tax claim cannot become final, and the appeal of the subsequent notice can also include grounds relating to the merits of the claim.

The Supreme Court clarifies that the amicable notice is not among the acts exhaustively listed in Article 19 of Legislative Decree No. 546 of 1992 as appealable. Its appeal is optional, not mandatory. Consequently, the failure to contest the notice does not "crystallize" the tax claim, allowing the taxpayer to appeal the subsequent tax assessment notice. In this context, both formal defects and substantive issues can be raised. This interpretation is consistent with previous rulings, including the important decision of the United Sections (Order No. 18298 of 2021).

Practical Implications for Taxpayers

This order has direct and positive implications for taxpayers:

• Full Access to Facilitated Settlement: The amicable notice does not preclude facilitated settlement, provided the tax assessment notice is appealed.
• Expanded Defense of Merits: Appealing the tax assessment notice allows for contesting both the form and the substantive content of the claim.
• No Preclusion: Failure to appeal the amicable notice does not compromise subsequent defense rights.
• Focus on the Tax Assessment Notice: The tax assessment notice is the decisive act that must be appealed within the deadlines to preserve one's rights.

Conclusions: Taxpayer Protection at the Forefront

Order No. 17584 of 2025 from the Court of Cassation is an important beacon in tax litigation. It reaffirms that the amicable notice does not have a preclusive effect on the possibility of appealing the tax assessment notice and accessing facilitated settlements. This decision strengthens taxpayer guarantees, ensuring that an optional act does not limit defense rights. However, tax matters are complex: it is always advisable to seek the advice of expert professionals to evaluate each individual case and adopt the most appropriate strategy.