"First Home" tax relief: the necessary specificity of the declaration in Ordinance no. 30925/2025

The purchase of a first home represents a fundamental milestone in the lives of many citizens, not only for the social value of the transaction but also for the significant tax savings guaranteed by the benefits provided by law. However, access to such benefits is not automatic and requires strict compliance with precise formalities. Recently, the Court of Cassation returned to this topic with Ordinance no. 30925 of November 25, 2025, precisely defining the boundaries of the expression of intent required to obtain the favorable tax regime.

The case and the relevant regulatory framework

The matter originated from a dispute between the State Attorney's Office and the taxpayer C., regarding the recognition of the benefits provided for the purchase of a first home. The core of the issue concerns the interpretation of Art. 1, Note II-bis, of the tariff attached to Presidential Decree (d.P.R.) no. 131 of 1986 (Consolidated Law on Registration Tax). This provision subordinates the application of the reduced tax rate to the presence of a specific declaration by the taxpayer, to be included in the deed of purchase, attesting to the possession of the required conditions (such as residence in the municipality or the commitment to transfer it there).

In the case at hand, the Supreme Court had to determine whether such a declaration could be generic or whether it must be indissolubly linked to the specific act that produces the transfer of property, whether it be a public deed or a judicial ruling.

Regarding tax relief for the purchase of a first home, the expression of intent prescribed by Art. 1, Note II-bis, of the tariff attached to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, must specifically refer to the act (public deed or judgment) of property acquisition that constitutes the object of taxation, to which the related favorable tax regime applies.

The importance of the nexus between intent and the taxable act

The principle expressed by the judges of legitimacy is clear: the tax relief is not a subjective right that follows the person regardless of form, but rather a favorable taxation regime that 'attaches' to a single act. Consequently, the taxpayer's expression of intent must be contained in or explicitly refer to the act being submitted for registration and taxation. In other words, it is not possible to invoke a benefit in the abstract if the act transferring the property does not itself contain the formal elements required by law.

This formal rigor serves the needs of legal certainty and the effectiveness of tax audits. For the taxpayer, this means that whenever the transfer of property occurs through channels other than the classic notarial deed — for example, through a judgment confirming usucaption or enforcing an unfulfilled preliminary contract — it is essential that the intent to benefit from the 'first home' relief be expressed with reference to that specific judicial title.

• The declaration must be contemporaneous with or specifically refer to the transfer act.
• Generic expressions of intent made in venues other than the act subject to taxation are not permitted.
• The burden of proof and compliance with formalities falls entirely on the taxpayer intending to benefit from the tax discount.

Conclusions on the Cassation ruling

In conclusion, Ordinance no. 30925/2025 reaffirms that tax law, especially regarding tax relief, does not allow for approximations. The Cassation's decision underscores how form is substance: the lack of a specific declaration referable to the deed of purchase inevitably leads to the forfeiture of the benefit, with the consequent recovery of ordinary taxes and the imposition of penalties. For citizens and professionals, this provision serves as a warning regarding the need to pay maximum attention to the drafting of deeds and the formulation of requests in judicial proceedings aimed at the transfer of real estate.