Italian Revenue Office clarifications on CFC rules

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

Italian Revenue Office clarifications on CFC rules

Italy cropped

After the Italian Revenue Office issued new guidance on CFC regulations, Piergiorgio Valente from Valente Associati GEB Partners reviews the changes.



Introduction

On August 4 2016, the Italian Revenue Office issued Circular No. 35/E (the circular) on rules and regulations for controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

The circular provides clarifications on identification criteria involving countries with privileged tax regimes as well as on the treatment of profits deriving from such countries.

It falls within the framework of the most recent regulatory innovations on the subject-matter which had some repercussions on both the taxation regime of income produced by foreign controlled companies and taxation of profits deriving from so-called “tax haven” countries.

The new rules mentioned above are contained in Legislative Decree No. 147 of September 14 2015 (Decreto Internazionalizzazione), providing measures for entrepreneurial development and internationalisation . The latter’s objective is to help Italy become more attractive and competitive for Italian or foreign enterprises planning to invest in Italy.

There is indeed a growing awareness with regard to the impact the tax variable may have on operators’ economic choices and of the role the tax system may play in its activities to support entrepreneurial internationalisation through the reduction of cross-border obligations, and the creation of a regulatory framework that is reliable and transparent.

 

Low-tax regimes and taxation of profits

The circular provides elucidations on the criteria to identify privileged tax regimes, starting from January 1 2016 . These are exclusively based on a nominal taxation level of less than 50% vis-à-vis the applicable taxation level in Italy and are no longer based on the formal criterion of a country’s inclusion in the black-list .

A clear description of the applicable criteria related to the 2015 tax period is also provided. Through an interpretative reading, the exclusion of EU or EEA member states that guarantee adequate information exchange from privileged tax regimes (a notion of provided by the Italian 2016 Stability Law) was extended to also include the 2015 tax period.

As far as the nominal tax level is concerned, the circular specifically states that from the Italian side, in line with the traditional black-list criteria and pursuant to Ministerial Decree dated November 21 2001, tax-relevance is ascribed to the corporate income tax ( IReS ) rate that was applicable during the tax period to which the control requirement refers, without taking any surtax into account. Italian Regional Tax on Productive Activities (IRAP), the ordinary tax rate of which (3.9%) is being considered, is also tax-relevant.

The circular further provides clarification on the notion of deriving profits, and clear-cut details on the treatment of dividends and capital gains, which are the expression of prior profits.

In order to establish whether the dividends are actually derived or sourced from a tax haven, the criterion that was applicable at the time of their receipt is taken into account. It is precisely at this point in time that taxation occurs, and is established, at the taxpayer’s level.

For dividends received and for capital gains realised up until the entry into force of Ministerial Decree of March 30 2015, and for blacklist inclusion or exclusion, ex Ministerial Decree dated November 21 2001, is still a valid aspect. While for the ones realised after such date, special attention should be paid to both inclusion in the black list and – in any case – to the stated criterion of a “taxation level of 50% lower than the one applied in Italy”.

For distributed dividends and capital gains realised as of 2016, the “nominal taxation level (...) 50% lower than the one applicable in Italy” applies, regardless of the criterion that was in force at the time in which the profit of the participated company was generated.





Piergiorgio Valente

Piergiorgio Valente, Managing Partnerp.valente@gebnetwork.it

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump have agreed that the countries will look to conclude a deal by July 21, 2025
The firm’s lack of transparency regarding its tax leaks scandal should see the ban extended beyond June 30, senators Deborah O’Neill and Barbara Pocock tell ITR
Despite posing significant administrative hurdles, digital services taxes remain ‘the best way forward’ for emerging economies, says Neil Kelley, COO of Ascoria
A ‘joint understanding’ among G7 countries that ‘defends American interests’ is set to be announced, Scott Bessent claimed
The ‘big four’ firm’s inaugural annual report unveiled a sharp drop in profits for 2024; in other news, Baker McKenzie and Perkins Coie expanded their US tax benches
Representatives from the two countries focused on TP as they met this week to evaluate progress under a previously signed agreement – it is understood
The UK accountancy firm’s transfer pricing lead tells ITR about his expat lifestyle, taking risks, and what makes tax cool
Dolphin Drilling intends to discuss the final liability amount and manner of settlement with HM Revenue and Customs
Winning the case against the 20% VAT imposition was always going to be an uphill challenge for the claimants, UK tax advisers argue
A ‘paradigm shift’ in Chile’s tax enforcement requires compliance architecture built on proactive governance, strategic documentation and active monitoring of judicial developments
Gift this article