Italy’s Supreme Court has confirmed that taxpayers may amend VAT returns after receiving a deficiency notice, but must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate corrected figures and explain differences from the original return.
The Italian Revenue Agency has issued a release on 14 September 2026 regarding a recent decision by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (Ordinance No. 24863/2026) concerning the correction of VAT reporting errors. The ruling confirms that taxpayers may file an amended VAT return to correct mistakes, even after receiving a formal deficiency notice from the tax authority.
A company filing a supplementary VAT return that eliminates a tax debt cannot rely solely on the amended declaration itself. The taxpayer must demonstrate that the corrected figures are accurate and explain why the original return contained different data. This is the holding of Italy’s Supreme Court Order No. 24863/2026, which upheld a EUR 70,000 assessment after an automated VAT check.
The case involved a 2017 VAT return that the company originally submitted on 28 April 2018. Following an automated review under Article 54 bis of Presidential Decree no. 633/1972, tax authorities identified an unpaid tax of approximately 70,000 euros.
The company challenged the assessment. It submitted a supplementary tax return on 25 November 2021, three weeks after receiving the irregularity notice on 8 November 2021. The supplementary return eliminated the tax liability, claiming taxable transactions had fallen from over EUR 600,000 to roughly half that amount.
Evidence fell short of the court’s standard
The appeal court recognised that the supplementary return was timely and legally valid, even though it arrived after the irregularity notice. However, the court found the company’s evidence insufficient.
The company produced VAT records and periodic settlement statements but never explained why the original return contained such different figures. The Spesometro data from 2017, which logs purchase and sales transactions, matched the original figures rather than the supplementary ones. This mismatch raised questions about the reliability of the correction.
Supreme Court rejects appeal
The Supreme Court sided with the appeal court. It clarified that the lower court had not rejected the supplementary return as invalid. Rather, the court had examined whether the tax debt had truly been eliminated based on the evidence presented and concluded it had not.
Tax proceedings, the Supreme Court stated, operate on a “merits appeal” basis. Judges can verify both the formal legitimacy of tax decisions and the factual accuracy of the underlying figures. The company’s failure to account for the radical swing in declared transactions constituted insufficient proof of accuracy. The court therefore confirmed the assessment and ordered the taxpayer to cover legal costs.
