The case, explained

The Case Explained: The Tax Penalty Reform and Local Taxes

5 min read · Updated November 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

The structural reform of the tax penalty system, culminating in the publication of delegated decrees in 2024, marks a paradigm shift in the relationship between tax authorities and taxpayers. According to reports in the specialized press, the intervention aims to bring administrative and criminal penalties within the boundaries of European proportionality, overcoming punitive automatisms often judged excessive. While previous articles in this column examined the statute of limitations and budget maneuvers, here we focus on the new architecture of the punitive system. This article analyzes how the new rules influence not only large-scale national assessments, but also the management of municipal taxes, through the lens of a hypothetical case involving Gaio Sventura and his chronic fiscal recklessness. The focus shifts to the coherence of the penalty system, exploring the overcoming of the so-called double-track system and the introduction of certain and reduced penalty caps.

The Case Explained: The Tax Penalty Reform and Local Taxes

In brief

The 2024 tax penalty reform introduces a structural revision of administrative and criminal penalties, reducing fixed rates and strengthening the principle of proportionality. The intervention also harmonizes the collection of local taxes, such as IMU and TARI, with new national standards. By coordinating proceedings, it aims to mitigate the effects of the double-track system and ensure the application of favor rei, marking a fundamental transition toward a fairer and more predictable penalty system.

  1. Background

    The timeline of the penalty reform saw key milestones in 2024. According to FiscoOggi, D.Lgs. 87/2024 redesigned administrative penalties for violations committed, introducing a reduction in rates. Subsequently, outlets such as NT+ Enti Locali and Ipsoa documented the extension of these principles to local taxes. The legislative process introduced a system requiring offices to calculate penalties no longer as a mathematical sum, but according to proportionality criteria. At the current stage, the reform is in its first judicial application phase, with taxpayers invoking the milder treatment even for prior pending cases.

  2. The laws at play

    The core of the reform lies in the amendment of D.Lgs. 471/1997 and D.Lgs. 472/1997.\n\n1. The penalty for unfaithful declaration is subject to a reduction in rates, reducing administrative discretion. 2. Article 12 of D.Lgs. 472/1997 strengthens the principle of proportionality, preventing a series of repeated errors from leading to astronomical figures. 3. D.Lgs. 74/2000 is integrated with new causes of non-punishability if the tax debt is fully paid, even through installments. 4. The reform harmonizes local taxes, allowing Municipalities to apply reductions similar to state ones for IMU and TARI, ensuring uniformity across the national territory.

  3. What the jurisprudence says

    Constitutional and supranational jurisprudence guided this reform. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly clarified that penalties must not be confiscatory, mandating respect for the principle of proportionality. At the European level, the CJEU ruled that the ne bis in idem principle prevents subjecting a taxpayer to double proceedings (criminal and administrative) for the same fact, unless there is a close temporal and material connection limiting the overall distress. National high courts have begun to embrace these warnings, pushing the legislator to coordinate the two penalty tracks to ensure the sum of penalties does not exceed what is necessary.

  5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

    To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

    Try edit.legal AI

  8. What it teaches professionals

    1. Constantly monitor the date the violation was committed to correctly invoke the new penalty regime.
    2. Always check with Municipalities whether they have adopted the new minimum penalties for IMU and TARI, avoiding payment of amounts no longer due.
    3. Coordinate the defense strategy between tax litigation and any criminal trial to leverage the new non-punishability clauses linked to debt payment.

References: D.Lgs. 14 giugno 2024, n. 87Art. 12 D.Lgs. 472/1997D.Lgs. 74/2000

Related cases

Same caseUnited Sections of the Supreme Court: Prescription of tax creditsSame caseOmnibus Decree Conversion: The New Special Voluntary RepentanceSame caseOmnibus Decree: The New 2018-2022 Tax Amnesty
Avv. Federico Papa
Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMContent drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction

Frequently asked questions

Does the penalty reduction also apply to old tax bills?

The favor rei principle applies to administrative penalties that are not yet final, but D.Lgs. 87/2024 sets a general effective date for the new measures.

What happens if I am already paying a criminal tax debt in installments?

The reform introduced specific causes of non-punishability if the tax debt is fully settled before the trial begins, rewarding remedial conduct.

Are Municipalities obliged to lower IMU penalties?

Yes, the local tax harmonization mandates compliance with new national limits, ensuring local penalties are not disproportionate compared to state ones.

Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal

Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.

Try edit.legal for free