Impatriate Regime: green light for the reimbursement even without a request to the employer

Supreme Court, Tax Section, Order No. 15234 of June 7, 2025

Abstract

In Order No. 15234 of June 7, 2025, the Supreme Court once again addressed the requirements for accessing favorable tax regime for so-called “impatriate workers”, as provided under Article 16 of Legislative Decree No. 147/2015. In this regard, the Court reaffirmed that formal omissions do not preclude access to the tax relief. Therefore, even in the absence of a prior request to the employer, the taxpayer may still benefit from the incentive by submitting a reimbursement claim, pursuant to Article 38 of Presidential Decree No. 602/1973, or directly through the personal tax return.

The case

The dispute originates from an appeal filed by the Italian Tax Authority against the ruling of the Regional Tax Commission (CTR) of Valle d’Aosta, which, modifying the first-instance decision, upheld the reimbursement request submitted by a taxpayer, concerning the overpaid tax for the fiscal year 2019, pursuant to Article 16 of Legislative Decree No. 147/2015 (so-called “Impatriate Regime”).

The taxpayer, a U.S. citizen, had moved to Italy in 2018, having started working as a manager for an Italian company. Believing that the conditions for applying the favourable regime were met, the employee requested the reimbursement of the taxes paid on his behalf by the employer, acting as withholding agent, directly in his tax return. The Tax Authority rejected the request, arguing that the legal requirements had not been demonstrated and no valid option had been exercised within the terms set by the Director of the Revenue Agency in the Provision of March 31, 2017.

The decision of the Supreme Court

With the Order in question, the Supreme Court upheld the second instance ruling in favour of the taxpayer, holding that the applicable legislation does not impose peremptory deadlines nor does it condition the benefit upon a request to the employer.

The Supreme Court refers to the administrative practice established under Law No. 238/2010, emphasizing that the regulations do not provide for forfeiture due to formal omissions. In particular, it refers to the clarification provided by the Italian Tax Authority in Circular No. 14/2012, which states that “as a residual measure, the interested party may submit a reimbursement request, pursuant to Article 38 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973.” The Court implicitly affirms that the principle also applies to the Impatriate Regime, given that Article 3 of the Ministerial Decree of May 25, 2016 – implementing the same regulations – links forfeiture solely to the case in which residence in Italy is not maintained for at least two years and not to failure in complying with the requirements set forth by the administrative practice (such as exercising the so-called “option” through a written request to the employer, as it stated in Circular No. 33/2020, §6).

The ruling also refers to Order No. 34655 of December 27, 2024, in which the Supreme Court had previously established that the relief applies if the requirements set forth in the applicable legislation are met and that requests for reimbursement cannot be rejected on the basis of the alleged optional nature of the relief. While adhering to the same principle, the Supreme Court seems to have slightly “corrected the objective” with respect to the aforementioned Order, whose effects – controversially – had been limited to transfers occurring before April 29, 2019 (pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 5-ter of Legislative Decree No. 147/2015).

The principles expressed in both Orders, beyond the specific cases at hand, appear to have general applicability within the context of the tax relief in question. Indeed, since the reimbursement request may be validly submitted even in the absence of the alleged option, it could reasonably be argued that claims remain valid even in cases where the taxpayer has omitted, or belatedly fulfilled, the formalities required for the extension of benefits for so-called “former impatriates” (Revenue Agency, Provision No. 60353 of March 3, 2021).