Social Pension and Income from Unoccupied Properties: The Clarity of Ordinance 16006/2025

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, now known as the Social Allowance (Assegno Sociale), is a welfare benefit provided by INPS to Italian citizens and foreign residents in Italy who are in disadvantaged economic conditions and have reached a certain age. The relevant legislation is complex and has evolved over time, with its roots in Articles 26 of Law no. 153 of 1969, 12 and 19 of Law no. 118 of 1971, and more recently, Article 3, paragraph 6, of Law no. 335 of 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

The case examined by the Court of Cassation involved I. C. P. versus D. C. B., and the Court of Appeal of Rome had previously adopted a stance that was subject to referral by the Supreme Court. 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. All other properties, even if unoccupied and therefore not generating direct rental income, contribute to forming the income for IRPEF purposes and, consequently, for the social pension limit.

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 of the Court of Cassation has a direct impact on all those who apply for or receive the social pension. 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 revalued cadastral value of unoccupied residential properties, other than the primary residence, is included in the calculation of taxable income for IRPEF for the determination of the social pension access limit.
• **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 an authoritative and definitive clarification on a matter of great importance in the field of welfare benefits. The decision reiterates the centrality of IRPEF taxable income and the necessity of including 'imputed' income from unoccupied properties in its calculation, with the sole exception of the primary residence. 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.