ICI on state-owned areas and concessions: who is liable for the tax? The Court of Cassation ruling no. 27259/2025

The taxation of state-owned areas has always been a complex issue and a source of numerous disputes between taxpayers and local administrations. Doubts often arise as to who is effectively responsible for local taxes, such as the ICI (now IMU), when a state-owned area is granted under a concession and, subsequently, the concessionaire transfers the right of enjoyment to third parties. The recent order of the Court of Cassation no. 27259 of October 12, 2025, addresses this common scenario, offering important clarifications regarding tax liability.

The case and the decision of the Supreme Court

The dispute involved P. (represented by G. M.) and R. (represented by D. R.) regarding the determination of the taxable person for ICI purposes concerning the concession of maritime state property intended for the construction and management of a tourist port. Specifically, the issue was whether the temporary transfer to third parties of the right to use mooring spots could exempt or transfer the tax obligation from the primary concessionaire to the final sub-users. The judges of legitimacy confirmed the decision of the Tax Justice Court of Second Instance of Lazio, reiterating that the ownership of the primary concession relationship is the sole determining factor for identifying the taxable person.

The principle of law established by the Court of Cassation

In matters of ICI on state-owned areas, the taxable person is the concessionaire, and the potential transfer of the right of enjoyment to third parties is irrelevant for this purpose, as long as the concession title has not been revoked or annulled.

This principle expresses a clear and linear rule of law: the tax relationship is established directly and exclusively between the taxing authority and the entity that obtained the concession of the state-owned space. The transfer of the enjoyment of the asset to third parties, for example through sub-concession contracts or temporary mooring usage agreements, constitutes a relationship of a purely private nature that has no external effect towards the tax authorities.

Key points of the decision

To fully understand the scope of this ruling, it is necessary to focus on some essential aspects that regulate local taxes on state-owned areas:

• Centrality of the concession title: As long as the state concession is in force, not revoked, and not annulled, the concessionaire remains the sole point of contact for tax payment.
• Irrelevance of private agreements: Any agreements for the transfer of enjoyment to third parties do not modify the tax liability defined by law.
• Jurisprudential continuity: The decision is in line with previous legitimacy orientations, consolidating a now solid and predictable approach.

Conclusions and practical implications

The Court of Cassation ruling no. 27259/2025 offers an important practical lesson for all operators in the sector, particularly for managers of tourist and port infrastructure. Anyone who obtains a state concession must be aware that the obligation to pay local taxes rests entirely upon them, regardless of subsequent contractual formulas for the commercial exploitation of the asset with third-party users. To protect themselves, concessionaires may need to include specific economic recourse clauses in private contracts, it being understood that they will always be the ones held primarily accountable before the Financial Administration.