Facilitated Settlement and Notice of Assessment: The Supreme Court's Clarifications in Order No. 29320/2025

The landscape of Italian tax litigation is often characterized by attempts at facilitated settlement aimed at resolving pending matters with the Treasury quickly and less expensively. However, not all acts issued by the Financial Administration allow access to such benefits. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation, Order No. 29320 of November 5, 2025, addressed a crucial issue: the admissibility of the facilitated settlement provided for by art. 6 of Legislative Decree No. 119 of 2018 in relation to notices of assessment that merely request payment of sums previously ascertained.

The procedural case involves taxpayer M. M. against the State Attorney's Office (Avvocatura Generale dello Stato), in an appeal stemming from the challenge of a decision by the Regional Tax Commission of Campania. The central point of contention concerns the possibility of resolving a dispute through a so-called tax amnesty when the challenged act does not introduce a new tax claim but merely assesses what was already established in a previous assessment notice. The Cassation, rejecting the appeal, provided fundamental interpretative guidance for distinguishing between challengeable acts for the purpose of facilitated settlement.

Distinction Between Assessment Notice and Mere Liquidation Notice

To understand the scope of the decision, it is necessary to distinguish between acts that exercise the tax claim for the first time and those that are merely its technical execution. The Court reiterated that facilitated settlement is exclusively reserved for disputes concerning acts of an assessment nature. If the notice of assessment contains no new evaluation on the merits of the tax, but represents only a formal step for the collection of sums already subject to an assessment, the prerequisite for the amnesty is lost.

• The act must be the first and only one through which the claim is exercised against the taxpayer.
• It must not be a mere restatement of calculations based on previous acts that were not challenged or were already confirmed in judicial proceedings.
• The dispute must concern the merits of the tax (whether and how much), not the mere technical method of collection or the summary of sums due.

In the context of facilitated settlement, a notice of tax assessment, if it constitutes a mere request for payment of the sum subject to a previous assessment act, lacks an assessment nature and purpose. Therefore, its challenge does not give rise to a dispute that can be settled under art. 6 of Legislative Decree No. 119 of 2018 (converted with amendments by Law No. 136 of 2018), as it is not the first and only act through which the tax claim is exercised against the taxpayer.

The Principle of Law Expressed by the Supreme Court

The commentary on the above maxim highlights how the Cassation intends to limit access to amnesty benefits to cases where there is actual uncertainty regarding the tax claim. If the tax authorities have already issued an assessment and this has remained unchallenged or has already been subject to judgment, the subsequent notice of assessment is a purely subservient act. Allowing facilitated settlement on a merely executive act would, in effect, permit the taxpayer to reopen expired deadlines to contest already consolidated tax debts, circumventing the purpose of the rule, which aims to reduce litigation on claims that are still pending and genuinely contestable.

This orientation aligns with illustrious precedents, such as the ruling of the United Sections No. 18298 of 2021, confirming a rigorous jurisprudential trend in interpreting favorable rules for taxpayers. Art. 6 of Legislative Decree 119/2018, converted by Law 136/2018, must therefore be applied with extreme caution: the challenge must concern an act that manifests the State's assessment intent for the first time. Otherwise, the request for facilitated settlement is inadmissible, as the very object of the definable dispute is missing.

Conclusions on the Scope of Order No. 29320/2025

In conclusion, Order No. 29320/2025 represents an important warning for taxpayers and legal advisors. Before embarking on the path of facilitated settlement, it is essential to meticulously analyze the nature of the challenged act. If one is faced with a mere payment request arising from previous assessment notices, the risk is that the request will be rejected, resulting in a waste of time and procedural resources. The Court's clarity in defining the scope of application of the tax amnesty helps to better outline defense strategies, avoiding instrumental appeals that have no chance of success in light of the current legal framework.