Italian inbound workers: no access to the Impatriate Tax Regime without five years of prior foreign tax residence

by Maria Alessia Grillotti

Abstract

With Order No. 9597, filed on 15 April 2026, the Supreme Court once again intervenes on the scope of application of the beneficial regime set out in Article 16 of Legislative Decree No. 147/2015. The Court holds that an Italian citizen, returning to Italy after a period of employment abroad shorter than five years, cannot access the tax regime for “impatriate” workers by invoking paragraph 2 (first sentence) of the provision, as that rule is intended exclusively for European Union nationals other than Italian citizens. According to the Court, any broader interpretation would result in an inadmissible abrogation of the general five-year requirement of prior foreign tax residence set out in paragraph 1(a).

 

The case

The case originates from a refund application filed by an Italian national who, having worked work for a company based in Shanghai from 2014 to 2016, returned to Italy at the beginning of 2017.

During the following two fiscal years, he paid income taxes under the ordinary regime, considering – based on the restrictive interpretation then prevailing in administrative practice – that he was not eligible for the tax regime under Article 16 of Legislative Decree No. 147/2015 (the so-called “Impatriate Regime”), due to the lack of registration with the Italian Registry of Italians Resident Abroad (AIRE) during his stay overseas.

Following the introduction of paragraph 5-ter of Article 16 – which removed the requirement of formal registration for individuals who returned to Italy by 31 December 2019 and are able to prove foreign tax residence under treaty criteria – the taxpayer sought a refund of the taxes paid, arguing that the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of Article 16 (i.e. EU citizenship, possession of a degree, and employment abroad for at least 24 months) were satisfied.

After a deemed rejection by the Italian Revenue Agency, the taxpayer filed an appeal. The first-instance Court dismissed the claim, and the Appellate Court upheld that decision, finding that the substantive requirement of a minimum five-year period of residence abroad had not been satisfied.

The taxpayer subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging an incorrect interpretation of the relevant provisions.

 

The decision of the Supreme Court

The Court, by the Order under examination, dismissed the appeal.

First, the Supreme Court reconstructs the architecture of the provision as in force at the relevant time, noting that it identified three distinct categories of beneficiaries, each subject to specific criteria.

In particular, paragraph 1(a) of Article 16 requires – among other conditions – that the worker must not have been tax resident in Italy for the five tax periods preceding the transfer.

Paragraph 2 (first sentence), extended the Regime to certain categories of individuals, including EU citizens meeting specified requirements. The second sentence of the same paragraph further extends the regime to non-EU citizens resident in countries that have concluded double taxation treaties with Italy.

Building on this interpretive framework, the Court rejects the taxpayer’s argument, according to which Italian citizens, as EU nationals, should likewise be able to access the Regime through paragraph 2, first sentence. The Court relies on a systematic interpretation: if Italian citizens were included within paragraph 2, paragraph 1(a) would effectively be deprived of any independent scope of application.

In other words, accepting the position advanced by the taxpayer would give rise to an inadmissible interpretatio abrogans of the (general) five-year requirement, in open conflict with the principles of statutory interpretation set out in Article 12 of the preliminary provisions to the Civil Code

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the first sentence of paragraph 2 applies exclusively to EU citizens other than Italian nationals, while Italian citizens remain subject to the general regime under paragraph 1, including the requirement of five prior tax years of foreign residence.