Analysis of Ruling Order No. 1144 of 2025: Res Judicata Effect in Tax Proceedings

Ruling No. 1144 of January 16, 2025, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a topic of great importance for Italian tax law: the effect of a criminal acquittal in tax proceedings. This order falls within the scope of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 87 of 2024, and clearly establishes that an irrevocable judgment of acquittal from a criminal trial has res judicata effect in tax proceedings, with some important exclusions.

The Regulatory Context

The core of the issue is represented by Article 21-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, which introduces significant innovations regarding the effect of criminal judgments in tax proceedings. The provision essentially states that a criminal acquittal judgment, once it becomes irrevocable, can be used as evidence in tax proceedings. However, the Court of Cassation clarifies that this does not apply in the case of judgments issued during the preliminary hearing.

Article 21-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000 - Irrevocable judgment of acquittal from a criminal trial - Res judicata effect in tax proceedings - Acquittal hypotheses in the preliminary hearing - Exclusion - Reasons. Article 21-bis of Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, introduced by Legislative Decree No. 87 of 2024, which recognizes res judicata effect in tax proceedings for an irrevocable judgment of acquittal from a criminal trial, does not apply, by express legislative choice and due to the different evidentiary content underlying the decision, in cases where a definitive judgment has been issued by the judge for preliminary investigations, even if it bears the formula "because the fact does not exist".

Distinction Between Trial and Preliminary Judgments

The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between different types of judgments. Trial judgments, the result of a full trial with debate and adversarial proceedings, offer a level of certainty and evidence that cannot be equated with that of judgments issued in the preliminary phase. This is because preliminary judgments are not always the result of an in-depth analysis of the merits, but may only reflect a superficial assessment of the facts.

• Trial judgments: greater evidentiary certainty.
• Preliminary judgments: limited assessment of the merits.
• Recognition of res judicata effect only for the former.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 1144 of 2025 represents an important clarification in tax and criminal law, highlighting how Italian legislation aims to ensure a balance between the rights of the taxpayer and the needs of tax fraud investigation. The distinction between trial and preliminary judgments is not merely technical but has significant repercussions on the dynamics of tax proceedings, reinforcing the need for a rigorous and well-defined approach in recognizing the effect of criminal judgments in the context of tax disputes.