Repeal of Tax Mediation: Impact on Pending Appeals

1. The facts

   The case concerns the regulatory transition following the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 220 of December 30, 2023, which abolished the mandatory mediation-complaint for disputes valued up to 50,000 euros. According to reports from NT+ Fisco of Il Sole 24 Ore, the management of the transitional period created a significant procedural divide. Many taxpayers who served appeals between late December 2023 and early January 2024 found themselves uncertain about the obligation to wait 90 days before filing in court. The issue, currently being reviewed by the Tax Justice Courts at the appeal level, revolves around the correct identification of the law applicable at the time. The Revenue Agency intervened to clarify that the date of service of the appeal is the sole parameter to determine whether the taxpayer must still undergo the mediation attempt or can proceed immediately to file the document.

2. 

   The laws at stake

   The regulatory framework is structured around three fundamental pillars.

   1. Art. 17-bis of Legislative Decree 546/1992, now repealed, provided that the appeal also produced the effects of a complaint and imposed a 90-day suspension of the process to encourage an out-of-court settlement.
   2. Art. 2 of Legislative Decree 220/2023 completely abolished this procedure, eliminating the mandatory administrative phase and providing direct access to the court.
   3. Art. 4, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree 220/2023 serves as the closing rule for the transitional regime, establishing that the new provisions apply exclusively to appeals served as of January 4, 2024. This provision implies that for appeals served by January 3, 2024, compliance with the 90-day dilatory term remains mandatory, under penalty of improcedurability.

3. What the case law says

   The case law of the Supreme Court, while previously addressing the nature of the complaint, has consolidated the principle of tempus regit actum regarding changes in procedural rules over time. The courts have clarified that the removal of a condition of procedurability does not have retroactive effect where the law establishes a specific commencement criterion linked to service. The prevailing orientation highlights that failure to comply with the terms under the old regime does not result in initial inadmissibility, but rather the suspension of the process to allow for the completion of the mediation phase. However, as pending disputes are still in the early stages of merit and no Supreme Court rulings on the reform yet exist, lower court judges tend to deem an appeal filed after 30 days under the new regime inadmissible if counsel erroneously assumed that the 90-day suspension, now abolished for new filings, remained applicable.

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. Always verify the date of perfection of service via PEC, distinguishing between acceptance and delivery receipts to identify the applicable regime.
   2. Never apply new procedural rules by analogy to proceedings already underway, unless there is an express provision of retroactivity.
   3. Constantly monitor administrative practice, such as Circular no. 7/E/2024, which serves as a reliable guide during periods of regulatory transition.
   4. In case of doubt during the transitional period, proceed with filing in court within the shorter term (30 days) to avoid the fatal risk of inadmissibility.

References: D.Lgs. 30 dicembre 2023, n. 220D.Lgs. 31 dicembre 1992, n. 546Circolare Agenzia delle Entrate n. 7/E del 21 marzo 2024

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 13 October 2026Content 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