Presentation used during the input statement at the "Petar Simonetti" Conference organized by the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law on March 16th 2017 in Parenzo (HR)

1. The Alternative Dispute
Resolution System
in Tax Trial
The Italian Experience
Petar Simonetti Conference, Poreč, March 16th 2017

2. A Matter of Numbers
• In 2015:
• Pending cases, first degree: 530.884
(31/12/2015);
• Cases filed in 2015: 256.901
• Cases decided in 2015: 298.313
• Workload of the Supreme Court in deciding tax
cases out of the total number of cases decided
per year: 47%
• Average number of cases presented per year:
250.000.

3. Understanding the Framework
• A special judge dealing with special cases;
• Tax jurisdiction is carved out from the ordinary one,
long standing historical reasons;
• Operated by part time judges;
• Miscellaneous background;
• On some situation:
• Lack of technical education on taxes;
• High uncertainty of judgement;
• Lack of stare decisis.

4. Dealing with Tax Litigation
•Ambiguous Nature of Tax Trial:
•The judge can:
• Repeal the assessment by the Tax office
• … by the Office, and declare it null and
deprived of any effect;
• Amend the assessment by the Tax office
• … where necessary, adjusting the conclusion
of the office in the way he deems necessary
to make it consistent with the law.

5. Introducing ADR
• Why ADR, then ?
• Various reasons:
1. Speed up the decision making process by the
judges;
2. Reduce transaction costs;
3. Improve stability of the system and legal
certainty.

6. Central Role of the Tax Office
• ADR sui generis, however;
• Central role of the Tax office in managing and
operating the procedure;
• Applicable to:
• All taxes;
• Value as high as € 25.000 (not higher);
• ADR made compulsory before filing a case in front
of the Tax Court.

7. Outlook for the Future
• No serious concerns related to the constitutionality
of the provision (a cost-free phase);
• Absolute lack of impartiality frustrates the
procedure;
• Suggestion by the Academic literature:
• Possibility to Empower specific bodies independent from
the parties;
• Reduce the tax litigation to two degree only eventually
transforming the first degree judges in ADR bodies.