TP liabilities on criminal tax in Italy: Assessing, adopting and avoiding

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

TP liabilities on criminal tax in Italy: Assessing, adopting and avoiding

The rule changes will pose new challenges for business and taxpayers

Cristina Caraccioli and Alessandro Valente of Crowe Valente/Valente Associati GEB Partners explain how amendments to a legal provision in the field of criminal law present an attractive opportunity for MNEs carrying out inter-company transactions.

During the course of tax audits, Italian tax authorities often challenge the value of the goods or services subject to intra-group relationships.



These disputes are particularly relevant for the Italian entity/company that carries out such inter-company transactions.



Should there be no coincidence between the declared assessments and the assessments made - based on Article 9 Testo unico delle imposte sui redditi (TUIR) - potential liability scenarios related to the crime of unfaithful declaration could open up.



The recent regulatory amendments made to Article 4 Legislative Decree No. 74/2000 in the field of criminal law and administrative liability of entities (amendments implemented under Article 39(1)(g) of Legislative Decree No. 124/2019) shed some light in this regard.



It should be noted that the new rules set forth suggest:



i) An increase of the statutory penalty limits from a minimum basis of two years to a maximum of four years and six months of imprisonment; and

ii) Lowering of the relevance threshold of the evaded tax to €100,000 ($109,230), than the previous threshold equal to the amount of €105,000; and

iii) Lowering of the assets deducted from tax imposition to €2 million, than the previous threshold equal to the amount of €3 million.

i) The assessments that, all considered, differ from correct ones to a lesser extent than 10% are not punishable; and

ii) The amounts included to a lesser extent than 10% are not relevant, for the purpose of verifying the overcoming of the punishment’s thresholds.



Furthermore, the amendment replaces the word “individually” (which was contained in the previous regulatory text) with the term “overall considered”. 

This way, the norm, asks for an overall assessment of the individual assessments to be deemed incorrect. Therefore, the amendments do not go against the rule of common sense, as introduced by Legislative Decree No. 158/2015 in the matter of unfaithful declaration, according to which during assessments, often related to particularly complex issues, slight deviations are physiological (if lesser extent than 10%), and shall not constitute offence.

Noteworthy is paragraph 1-bis of the Article 4 of the Legislative Decree No. 74/2000, which provides for the non-punishment for the crime of unfaithful declaration in the event the assessment criteria actually applied, are indicated in the financial statements, or emerge from other documents relevant for tax purposes.

This legal provision could subsequently represent an attractive opportunity for multinational enterprises (MNEs) carrying out inter-company transactions.


In this regard, in Italy since 2010, pursuant to Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 78/2010, the transfer pricing (TP) documentation is deemed tax-relevant. However, it will be deemed relevant only for those cases in which tax authorities are able to understand the TP methodology actually applied by MNEs, and whenever they are compliant with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and with the EU Code of Conduct.



As such, a sound TP documentation assumes greater importance in Italy. If specific indications on the TP methodology used by the company are inserted in the financial statements or within TP documentation, the taxpayer could be able to exclude potential liability scenarios in connection with the crime of unfaithful declaration. In particular, whenever the threshold set by law is exceeded (€100,000).



Finally, it should be noted that:

  • Given that the offence of unfaithful declaration is committed at the moment of the presentation of the annual financial statement, the new rules will apply from the tax period subsequent to the entry into force of the Law No. 157/2019 (i.e., the 2019 annual financial statement).

  • Amendments do not provide for pre-trial detention and, in case of conviction, do not provide for the confiscations of assets.


In light of the above, TP documentation assumes an increased opportunity and is most advisable (not only for penalty protection). 



Cristina Caraccioli

E: c.caraccioli@crowevalente.it



Alessandro Valente

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

There is a shocking discrepancy between professional services firms’ parental leave packages. Those that fail to get with the times risk losing out in the war for talent
Winston Taylor is expected to launch in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers across the US, UK, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East
They are alleging that leaked tax information ‘unfairly tarnished’ their business operations; in other news, Davis Polk and Eversheds Sutherland made key tax hires
Overall revenues for the combined UK and Swiss firm inched up 2% to £3.6 billion despite a ‘challenging market’
In the first of a two-part series, experts from Khaitan & Co dissect a highly anticipated Indian Supreme Court ruling that marks a decisive shift in India’s international tax jurisprudence
The OECD profile signals Brazil is no longer a jurisdiction where TP can be treated as a mechanical compliance exercise, one expert suggests, though another highlights 'significant concerns'
Libya’s often-overlooked stamp duty can halt payments and freeze contracts, making this quiet tax a decisive hurdle for foreign investors to clear, writes Salaheddin El Busefi
Eugena Cerny shares hard-earned lessons from tax automation projects and explains how to navigate internal roadblocks and miscommunications
The Clifford Chance and Hyatt cases collectively confirm a fundamental principle of international tax law: permanent establishment is a concept based on physical and territorial presence
Australian government minister Andrew Leigh reflects on the fallout of the scandal three years on and looks ahead to regulatory changes
Gift this article