A ruling by the Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation puts an end to disputes that over the years have seen taxpayers and local administrations at odds over Ici/Imu. The Supreme Court, with ruling no. 23488 of 2026, enunciates the following principle of law: «In the matter of Ici, for the purposes of the exemption provided for by article 8 of legislative decree no. 504 of 1992, as amended by article 1, paragraph 173, letter b, of law no. 296 of 2006, for principal residence – corresponding, unless proven otherwise, to the registered residence – it is understood, following ruling no. 112 of 2025 of the Constitutional Court, to be that in which the taxpayer, who owns it by title of property, usufruct or other real right, habitually resides, without it being necessary for their family unit to also reside there».
Read more Weather in Tuscany, violent thunderstorms arriving: orange alert – The critical areas and hours
The case followed by lawyer Nitto
The Joint Sections of the Supreme Court ruled at the end of a proceeding in which the Pisan lawyer Massimo Nitto (assisted by the commercial firm of Dr. Nino Maffia of Massa e Cozzile, in the province of Pistoia) assisted a taxpayer. «I challenged the right of the Municipality of Pietrasanta to demand the payment of Ici from a taxpayer residing there but whose family unit habitually resided in another municipality – explains the lawyer, with an office in San Romano (Montopoli) – The ruling puts an end to a long tax dispute that has poisoned the relationship between local administrations and property-owning taxpayers regularly registered in the local registry, who, however, were penalized by an overly restrictive interpretation of the law. The dispute I dealt with was submitted to the scrutiny of the Joint Sections of the Cassation by the Tax Section, in the second instance to the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court and again to that of the Joint Sections for the decision».
Repercussions for Municipalities
According to lawyer Nitto, «it is evident that, following this decision, the repercussions on the coffers of municipalities in tourist locations could be enormous, as the quantity of appeals filed by taxpayers is expected to be substantial, also for the purpose of reimbursement of taxes collected by local administrations and, in light of what has been decided, not due».
The jurisprudential path
The ruling of the Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation is the last stage of a long journey begun by the Constitutional Court with ruling no. 209 of 2022 on Imu and continued, for Ici, with ruling no. 112 of 2025. The point is, as mentioned, the following: for the purposes of the exemption for the principal residence referred to in article 8, paragraph 2, of legislative decree no. 504 of 1992, it is not necessary for the taxpayer’s family unit to also habitually reside in the property. To give an example: a husband who resides in Municipality X is entitled to the Ici/Imu exemption on his principal residence even if his wife and children reside in Municipality Y.
The extinction of the judgment
In the specific case followed by lawyer Nitto, it should be noted that the administration had intervened – after the declaration of unconstitutionality in 2025 – by annulling in self-protection the Ici assessment acts in judgment for the years 2009-2011, requesting that the judgment be declared extinguished due to a supervening lack of interest. The Joint Sections declared the extinction of the judgment due to the cessation of the subject matter of the dispute and enunciated – pursuant to article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure – the principle of law.
Read more A new ship for connections in Sardinia
