Italy: Robin Hood Tax on energy companies declared illegitimate

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Italy: Robin Hood Tax on energy companies declared illegitimate

foglia.jpg

dayala.jpg

Giuliano Foglia


Giovanni d’Ayala Valva

With the February 11 2015 decision n. 10/2015, the Italian Constitutional Court declared the 'Robin Hood Tax' unconstitutional. The removal of the Robin Hood Tax is being welcomed by energy companies, since it determines a significant reduction of the tax burden (from 34% per cent to 27.5%) and boosts earnings. The Robin Hood Tax was introduced in 2008 as a surtax on certain companies operating in the energy sector to rein in what was considered an excessive profits from high oil prices. Starting from 2011, it became applicable also to companies active in the renewable energy sector

In a nutshell, the Robin Hood Tax consisted in a surcharge of 6.5% of the ordinary corporate income tax rate and it was applicable to companies that exceeded certain financial thresholds.

With the decision n. 10/2015 the Constitutional Court upheld the taxpayers' claim and declared Robin Hood Tax in breach of the principles of equality and ability-to-pay established by articles 3 and 53 of the Italian Constitution.

In particular, the Court underlined that: (i) Robin Hood Tax was supposed to tax extra-profits but it actually taxed the overall taxable income; (ii) the intention of the legislator was to introduce a temporary surtax to face specific economic circumstances but it has become an ordinary corporate income tax for energy companies, without any specific link with the taxpayer's ability to pay; (iii) notwithstanding the express ban provided by the law, the impossibility to prevent companies from shifting the burden of such tax onto consumers was proved.

According to decision n. 10/2015 the declaration of unconstitutionality does not apply retroactively and its removal is, therefore, effective as from the day after its publication in the Official Gazette (that is, February 11 2015).

Despite Italian law allowing for decisions of the Constitutional Court to be, in principle, retroactive, the Court in this case expressly limited its verdict to the future, to avoid a potentially massive adverse effect on the Italian public accounts.

This should mean that there is no room to claim for the refund of the sums paid in the past.

It is, however, unclear whether the decision affects 2014 considering that calendar year taxpayers have still (i) to pay the balance of the corporate income tax (in June 2015); and (ii) to file the 2014 tax return (in September 2015). It is also still unclear what happens for taxpayers whose fiscal year does not coincide with the calendar one. Other issues have arisen with respect to the impact of the decision in relation to the relevant accounting treatment of the deferred tax assets and liabilities due to taxable temporary differences.

Clarifications by the Italian tax authority are expected.

Giuliano Foglia (foglia@virtax.it) and Giovanni d'Ayala Valva (dayala@virtax.it)

Tremonti Vitali Romagnoli Piccardi e Associati

Tel: +39 06 3218022 (Rome); +39 02 58313707 (Milan)

Website: www.virtax.it

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

France v Axa provides a practical illustration of how the burden of proof is applied in TP matters under French law, ITR also heard
In a world where international tax concepts rely on human activity, Leonard Wagenaar poses existential questions about the future of such ideas when AI is ever-present
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
Gift this article