Referring to its well-established position on the matter (see, among others, Cass. Order No. 1534/2025; Cass. Order No. 34655/2024), the Italian Supreme Court, with Court Order No. 23526/2025, upheld the taxpayer’s right to a refund of excess taxes paid, despite the absence of a specific request to the employer or the indication—when filing the tax return—of the reduced taxable income under the so-called inbound workers regime (regime impatriati).
The Case
The taxpayer, believing he met the requirements for the inbound workers regime, applied to the Italian Revenue Agency for a refund of excess IRPEF (personal income tax) and related surtaxes paid for the 2018 tax year.
However, the taxpayer had not asked his employer to apply the special regime’s reduced withholdings, nor had he opted for the inbound workers regime in his income tax return.
The Revenue Agency remained silent, which amounted to a denial of the refund. The taxpayer appealed the Agency’s silent denial before the Regional Tax Court (CTR), which annulled it, ruling that the failure to request application of the regime from the employer could not cause forfeiture of the right to a refund. The court ordered the refund, and this decision was upheld on appeal. The Revenue Agency then brought the case before the Supreme Court, raising a single ground of appeal.
The Legal Framework
The dispute centered on Article 16 of Legislative Decree No. 147/2015, as in force prior to the amendments introduced by Decree-Law No. 34/2019.
According to the Revenue Agency, the procedural requirements to obtain the tax relief were “not otherwise replaceable” given the exceptional nature of the regime.
In 2019, Article 16 was amended with the addition of paragraph 5-ter (via Decree-Law No. 34/2019), which prohibits refunds of taxes voluntarily paid by employees within the inbound workers regime.
However, as clarified by the wording of Article 5(2), this prohibition applies only ex nunc—from 1 May 2019—since no retroactive effect was provided by law. As a result, the only consequence is that the burden lies on the taxpayer to file a refund claim. The procedure changes, but the substantive right to the tax benefit remains intact.
Moreover, the taxpayer’s ability to request a refund personally had already been acknowledged by the Revenue Agency itself in Circular 14/E/2012 (para. 2.2) and reiterated in Circular 17/E/2017. The lower courts correctly applied these principles in ruling against the Agency.
The regional judges held that “forfeiture of the tax relief due to failure to request it from the employer is not provided for by any law, nor can reference be made to Article 16(5-ter) of Legislative Decree 147/2015,” since this prohibition was introduced only subsequently by Decree-Law 34/2019.
Therefore, ratione temporis, the prohibition of refunds could not apply to the case at hand.
In summary:
- Before 1 May 2019, taxpayers could request a refund of excess taxes paid under the inbound workers regime, even without an employer’s request or indication of reduced taxable income in the tax return.
- After 1 May 2019, following the introduction of paragraph 5-ter of Article 16, workers who voluntarily paid higher taxes cannot obtain a refund of the excess except in the forms expressly provided by law.
