Access to welfare benefits, such as the social pension, is often contingent upon meeting certain income requirements. These thresholds are established by law to ensure that support is directed to those who genuinely need it. However, the precise determination of which income should be counted can lead to uncertainties and disputes. It is within this context that the recent and significant Ordinance of the Court of Cassation no. 16006 of June 15, 2025, intervenes, offering fundamental clarifications on the relevance of unoccupied properties for the calculation of income for social pension purposes.

The Supreme Court, with the ruling by President F. G. and rapporteur R. R., has addressed a highly topical issue, clarifying a crucial aspect that directly impacts the lives of many citizens.

The Income Requirement for Social Pension: The Regulatory Framework

The social pension and the social allowance (assegno sociale) are distinct welfare benefits. INPS explains that the social allowance replaced the social pension for new claims from 1 January 1996; the social pension continues for people covered by the previous scheme. Eligibility and relevant income must therefore be assessed for the particular benefit. The headnote discussed here refers to Article 26 of Law no. 153/1969, Articles 12 and 19 of Law no. 118/1971 and Article 3(6) of Law no. 335/1995.

These provisions stipulate that, to access the benefit, specific income limits must be met. The central question that often arises is: which income items should be included in the calculation? In particular, there has been a long-standing debate on the relevance of income derived from residential properties that are not rented out, meaning they do not generate direct rental income.

The Supreme Court's Decision: Ordinance no. 16006 of 2025

In the case examined, the Labour Section of the Court of Cassation set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome of 2 October 2019 and remitted the case. Ordinance no. 16006 of 2025 intervenes precisely to define the scope of income to be considered with precision. The headnote extracted from the judgment is extremely clear and represents a definitive point:

For the purpose of determining the income limit for access to the social pension, pursuant to Articles 26 of Law no. 153 of 1969, 12 and 19 of Law no. 118 of 1971, and 3, paragraph 6, of Law no. 335 of 1995, taxable income for IRPEF purposes is relevant, and this includes income derived from unoccupied residential properties, other than the property used as the primary residence, considering that only for the latter does the exemption established by Article 26 of Law no. 153 of 1969 apply, and that amounts paid as IMU are not, generally, deductible from IRPEF, pursuant to Article 10 of Presidential Decree no. 917 of 1986.

This ruling is of fundamental importance. The Court of Cassation clarifies that the income to be considered is that which is taxable for IRPEF purposes. Within this calculation, income derived from residential properties that are not rented out must also be included, provided they are not the applicant's primary residence. The distinction is crucial: the primary residence enjoys a specific exemption, as provided by Article 26 of Law no. 153 of 1969, and its value does not affect the calculation. The principle concerns income from non-let residential properties in the circumstances examined. It should not be treated as a universal tax rule for every property or automatically extended to all welfare benefits.

A further aspect highlighted by the Court concerns IMU (Municipal Property Tax). Amounts paid as IMU are, generally, not deductible from IRPEF, as established by Article 10 of Presidential Decree no. 917 of 1986. This means that the fact of paying IMU on an unoccupied property does not allow it to be 'subtracted' from the IRPEF taxable income, reinforcing the argument for the inclusion of such income in the calculation for the social pension. The Court, with ordinance no. 16006 of 2025, has therefore overturned the previous decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome, remitting the case for a new examination that takes these principles into account.

Practical Implications and Applicant Protection

The ruling provides a principle that must be read alongside the rules for the particular benefit and the period concerned. It is essential to be aware of this interpretation to avoid unpleasant surprises or the revocation of the benefit. The practical implications can be summarized as follows:

• **Inclusion of Unoccupied Properties:** The headnote includes income from non-let residential properties other than the main home in the income limit for the benefit examined. It does not require the property’s capital cadastral value to be added to income.
• **Non-Deductibility of IMU:** Payment of IMU on these properties does not allow for the deduction of this tax from IRPEF taxable income, leaving the income to be considered unchanged.
• **Importance of Declaration:** It is crucial to correctly declare all income, including that derived from such properties, to avoid disputes with INPS.
• **Legal Advice:** In cases of doubt or complex situations, it is always advisable to seek advice from professionals in social security law for an accurate assessment of one's position.

Conclusions

Ordinance no. 16006 of June 15, 2025, by the Court of Cassation represents a judicial clarification on a matter of great importance in the field of welfare benefits. The decision concerns income from non-let residential properties and the exception for the main home in the circumstances examined. A specific claim requires distinguishing the social pension from the social allowance and checking the applicable income rules. This ruling offers greater legal certainty, but at the same time requires applicants to pay scrupulous attention to the declaration of their real estate assets to ensure access to social security and welfare rights.

Sources: Court of Cassation, Labour Section, Order no. 16006/2025, Rv. 675646-01, official digest, pp. 126-127; INPS, social pension and its replacement by the social allowance.