Edited by Energy Team
Excise duty relief for maritime sector fuels: Circular no. 26/2025 of October 1, 2025
It is noted that the Customs Agency, with Circular 26/2025, has provided clarifications regarding the excise duty relief on fuels intended for the maritime sector.
These clarifications were necessary to resolve interpretative issues raised by some trade associations concerning usage cases for activities other than the regular transport of passengers and goods, as well as other activities referred to in art. 1, paragraphs 4 and 5, of D.M. no. 225/2015, amended by D.M. no. 171/2023, issued to comply with the EU Court of Justice ruling in case C-341/2020.
The EU Court of Justice had noted that Ministerial Decree No. 225/2015 was contrary to EU legislation, as it granted excise duty exemption for fuel used by rented or leased pleasure boats, regardless of the actual use by the lessee or charterer. Ministerial Decree No. 171/2023 has therefore restored legality by making the benefit contingent on verifying the actual navigation activity performed.
With Circular 11/2024, the Customs Agency had already provided clarification on the scope of the regulatory changes; however, further explanations were necessary to resolve interpretative issues concerning the exclusive use of boats for paid services, other than regular passenger and freight transport, as provided for by art. 6-bis of Ministerial Decree No. 225/2015.
The Circular under review emphasizes the need to request the issuance of the identification code required by art. 6- bis for vessels registered in naval records (e.g., Register of Minor Ships and Floating Vessels) authorized to carry out mixed passenger and cargo transport activities, recalling the principles of the EU Court of Justice, which require verification of the final use of the vessel for the application of the fiscal benefit.
Additionally, it is clarified that piloting services are exempt from the procedural obligations of art. 6- bis D.M. no. 225/2015, considered technical-nautical services of general interest, ancillary to port operations and established in ports to ensure the safety of navigation and docking.
From 2024, easement compensations fall under miscellaneous income
The Revenue Agency published on November 7th the response to ruling inquiry no. 289 regarding the qualification of income derived from compensation for the establishment of easement rights. The case refers to a taxpayer that, in 2024, executed the act of establishing easement rights on a property located in an area affected by electrical grid works. Also in 2024, the taxpayer received the balance of the compensation.
The Agency does not agree with the taxpayer’s representation that this amount should not constitute income, basing its reasons on the fact that this compensation originates from special provisions that would exclude its taxability, and also considering that the easement was established compulsorily for public needs. On the contrary, the Revenue Agency, referring to Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Consolidated Act on expropriation for public utility, states that the compensation under review – if paid to non-entrepreneurs – constitutes miscellaneous income. Specifically, the aforementioned Article 35 related such income to Article 67, paragraph 1, letter b), Tuir, which concerns capital gains resulting from the onerous sale of properties acquired or built less than five years ago. Regarding this provision, the Agency recalls that the 2024 budget law (Article 1, paragraph 92, Law no. 213/2023) has modified the scope of various incomes explicitly including incomes deriving from «from the establishment of other real rights of enjoyment», still from article 67 but from letter h.
The same budget law also amended article 9, paragraph 5 of the same TUIR, providing that «For the purposes of income taxes, unless otherwise provided, the provisions relating to transfers for consideration also apply to acts for consideration that involve the establishment or transfer of real rights of enjoyment and to contributions to companies».
Furthermore, referring to the Parliamentary Dossier as well as the technical report to the same Budget law, the Agency concludes that starting from the entry into force of the new wording of art. 67 of the TUIR “the cases concerning the establishment of real rights of enjoyment, which previously would have been included under capital gains according to letter b) of paragraph 1 of the mentioned article, are now classified under the category of ”other income” referred to in the subsequent letter h)”. On this point, the Agency considers a previous position taken in circular no.194 of 1998 to be surpassed.
Therefore, the easement indemnity subject of the ruling, for the establishment of the voluntary easement right for the power line on the property located in the area affected by the works, will be subject to taxation pursuant to letter h, paragraph 1 of art. 67 of the TUIR.
Tremonti Ambiente denied by the Cassation for special purpose companies
With the Civil Supreme Court Ordinance Sec. 5 No. 29303 of 2025, the Supreme Court intervened on the “Tremonti Ambiente” benefit, precluding it to companies established solely to produce and sell energy from renewable sources.
The case referred to a company established for the purpose of building a photovoltaic plant to produce electricity intended entirely for sale, without self-consumption or improvement of its production cycles.
The Court argues its thesis by emphasizing how the investment would not be aimed at mitigating an environmental damage connected to the company’s activity, but rather constitutes the main activity of the company itself. Therefore, in this context, in the Court’s view, the incentive would constitute State aid, contrary to union principles of competition (Art. 107-109 TFEU) because, according to the Court’s opinion, the benefit would give these companies an advantage over others operating in the European energy market. The ruling under exam is not supported by any official interpretation from the Italian Revenue Agency and it is not consistent with the prevailing practice.
Tremonti Environment non-refundable if the request was not timely
On September 18th, the Court of Cassation issued order no. 25598 declaring the refund request for the so-called “Tremonti Ambiente” untimely if it was submitted beyond the ordinary deadline, even if the supplementary declaration and the refund request were submitted following a clarification on the eligibility of the benefit itself.
The case refers to investments made in 2010 to renovate hydroelectric plants, for which the taxpayer sought to apply the Tremonti Ambiente benefit only after clarifications were issued regarding the compatibility of this benefit with the Conto Energia. Thus, only in 2018 it submitted an amended declaration and a refund request to recover the payments made in 2013 and 2014, which would have been excessive had the benefit been applied from the outset.
In the factual scenario thus briefly outlined, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Regional Tax Commission, rejecting the refund request due to the expiration of the deadline, emphasizing that the deadline for refunds is mandatory and cannot be extended retroactively.
The Court, after recalling that the supplementary declaration and the refund request are separate procedures and that the statute of limitations must be verified before examining the merits of the request, reaffirms that regulatory uncertainty does not justify exceptions to the statute of limitations, which serve to ensure certainty in tax relationships.
Tremonti Environment: the Supreme Court intervenes on the quantification of the benefit
The Supreme Court of Cassation, Civil Tax Section, issued the ordinance on 23.10.2025, no. 28205, which arose from a dispute by the Revenue Agency regarding the so-called Tremonti Environment (art. 6, c. 13 et seq. Law 388/2000), arguing that the tax deduction should not include depreciation calculated on the costs of environmental investments.
The Court upheld the appeal, ruling that operating costs and economic benefits should not be considered in calculating the allowable surcharge. The challenged judgment was overturned and remanded to the second-level tax court for re-examination, excluding depreciation quotas from the calculation of allowable costs.
The Court of Cassation addresses the IMU on platforms
The Cassation Court (Section 5 Judgment No. 24611 Year 2025) revisits the IMU related to platforms for hydrocarbon extraction (now subject to IMPI). The dispute in question refers to the tax for the year 2015 and was initiated by a municipality in Romagna. The Court confirmed the regional tax commission’s decision, deeming the tax owed.
The supporting arguments mainly refer to i) criteria of territorial affiliation, as offshore platforms also benefit from onshore infrastructure and services directly in front of the platform itself; ii) classification of platforms as D/7 real estate, as they are permanently anchored to the seabed and are real estate units capable of independently generating income; iii) the nature of IMPI as a substitute for any other local real estate taxation, meaning that this type of local taxation already existed and therefore would not have been introduced anew with the IMPI.
Fuel plant: according to the Court of Cassation, it constitutes real estate
The Supreme Court of Cassation (tax section – 11/05/2025, no. 29332) reviewed the appeal of a taxpayer against the Revenue Agency regarding the tax classification of two fuel distribution plants subject to transfer within a business package. The dispute concerns the correct application of registration and mortgage taxes, which the Office recalculated considering the entire taxable base as real estate, excluding goodwill. The CTP Florence had accepted the appeals, arguing that the plants, being easily separable from the land, did not fall under the provisions of art. 812 c.c. However, the CTR Tuscany overturned the decision, stating that even movable things incorporated into the land should be considered real estate, and that in the deeds, it was not specified which assets were plants or equipment.
The court overturns the taxpayer’s appeal concluding that “[…], although the ‘fixed’ installation does not lose its real identity (in the sense that, compared to the property to which it is attached, it remains an objectively distinct entity), its state of functional connection with the ground changes its legal consideration. Nor does its reversibility, linked to easy movement or removal, exclude its immobilization.”
The Court also adds that “In the case under examination, both the structural connection, since the ‘movable goods’ are functionally necessary to the immovable ones to carry out the productive activity for which the latter are intended, and the functional inseparability are recognizable, as if the ‘movable goods’ were separated from the immovable ones, the latter would lose their economic function, which means both the requirements necessary to configure a single complex asset intended for fuel distribution.
In this perspective, the facilities under examination undoubtedly assume a real estate nature, being component parts of an immovable asset”.
To confirm this approach, the court refers to some tax cases, including Cass., Sez. 5, Sentenza n. 6840 of 14/03/2024 which – the sentence reports – “he stated that “For the purposes of registration, mortgage, and cadastral taxes, large-scale photovoltaic systems (solar parks), built for the purpose of producing energy to be fed into the national electricity grid for sale, are considered, in all respects, as real estate, because the structural and functional connection between the land and the systems is such that they can be considered substantially inseparable, regardless of the abstract possibility of removal and installation elsewhere”. The principle, although stated with reference to a different case, is certainly extendable to the one under consideration”.
Fuel vouchers are to be classified as multi-purpose for VAT purposes
With the response to query no. 235 of September 10, 2025, the Revenue Agency clarified that fuel vouchers must be classified as multi-purpose for VAT purposes.
The tax, therefore, is applied exclusively at the time of voucher use, since at the time of its issuance it is not possible to determine with certainty the amount of fuel that can be purchased. This uncertainty is due to the variability of the retail price, influenced by both the trends in the oil market and the commercial policies of individual distributors.
The distinction between single-use and multi-use vouchers, introduced by EU Directive 2016/1065 and implemented in Italy with Legislative Decree 141/2018, is based on the availability of information necessary for the application of VAT at the time of issuance. Single-use vouchers are those for which, at the time of issuance, the nature, quantity, and price of the goods or services are already known; multi-use vouchers, on the other hand, do not allow for such early determination.
In the past, the Agency had classified fuel vouchers as legitimization documents, assimilating to the transfer of money and thus not relevant for VAT purposes. Only the distributor, at the time of refueling, was required to issue the invoice.
With circular 8/E/2018, the Agency then distinguished between vouchers usable at stations of the same company, subject to VAT at the time of issuance, and vouchers redeemable at multiple entities or for various goods/services, considered multi-purpose.
Response no. 235/2025 overrides this interpretation, stating that even vouchers usable at stations of the same company must be considered multi-purpose, as the fuel price is variable and does not allow for the pre-determination of the quantity purchasable.
This clarification has important operational consequences for companies: fuel vouchers and prepaid cards distributed to employees will only be considered relevant for VAT purposes at the time of use, with consequent adjustment of invoicing and tax payment timings.
VAT deduction for shell companies: the incompatibility of Italian provisions compared to European ones
The Court of Cassation, with order no. 13598/2025, reaffirmed that certain Italian provisions regarding shell companies – particularly art. 30 of Law no. 724/1994 – are in conflict with the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC.
The case arises from a company that was denied the VAT credit refund because it had not passed the so-called operativity test.
This implies that companies that have previously been denied VAT deduction for failing the operational test might have grounds to assert their rights, invoking the primacy of EU law. At the same time, the Revenue Agency will need to take this orientation into account in future disputes.
Similar conclusions are contained in other Supreme Court rulings this year (7813/2025 and 14167/2025).
The instructions from OIC and the Revenue Agency regarding the fiscal risks stemming from accounting principles: the termination of commodities swap and surface rights
Last August 7th, the Revenue Agency issued a directive (Prot. n. 321934/2025) containing the update and integration of guidelines for the preparation of an effective Tax Control Framework. These guidelines are aimed at companies that intend to join collaborative compliance and, consequently, require certification of the tax risk control system.
It particularly relates to tax risks arising from accounting principles applied by the taxpayer, with reference to three specific cases examined by the Revenue Agency and OIC, each within their area of expertise, whose forms are attached to the provision. These are a) early termination of a commodity swap contract; b) Accounting treatment, for income tax purposes, of compensation for granting surface rights; c) Issuance and closure of a zero-coupon convertible bond loan.
Considering the industry to whom this document is addressed, we consider it appropriate to highlight the first two.
Early termination of a commodity swap contract: accounting and tax treatment
The first sheet examines the early termination of a commodity swap signed to hedge the fluctuations in the purchase price of natural gas with the simultaneous receipt of the current (positive) value of the instrument.
Accounting behavior. OIC distinguishes two scenarios: 1) if it is expected that the flows of the hedged item will still occur, the amount set aside in the reserve for cash flow hedging operations (A VII) remains in this category until the future flows occur (see OIC 32 paragraph 92.a). 2) if the cash flows of the hedged item are no longer expected or are no longer considered highly probable, the amount of the reserve must be immediately transferred to the income statement, in section D, as it has become ineffective (see OIC 32, paragraph 92.b).
Fiscal behavior. The Agency revisits the topic already addressed in response to inquiry no. 36/2024, reiterating that the income contributes to the formation of IRES according to the so-called strengthened derivation principle. Therefore, in the presence of coverage according to Cash Flow Hedge, the reserve becomes relevant for IRES at the time of the so-called “recycling” in the income statement and according to the same nature of the hedged item (see Art. 112 of the TUIR and Ministerial Decree of June 8, 2011) in subsequent financial years over the reference period of the hedged item. Given the recognition in the income statement as a direct reduction of gas procurement costs, these amounts will contribute to the formation of IRAP in the same financial years of recognition according to the principle of direct intake from the income statement.
Consideration for the granting of the right of superficies
The second case examined concerns the annual fee for the remuneration of a temporary surface right involving a plot of land.
Accounting treatment. Recalling the absence of a principle specifically dealing with surface rights fees, OIC seeks a solution through analogical interpretation, based on the OIC11 principle regarding financial statement objectives and postulates. Referring to OIC12 (Composition and formats of the financial statements), it finds a substantial equivalence, in terms of negative income components, between the accounting effects produced by the surface right and those produced by leasing, and for this reason, it believes that the positive components, including surface rights fees, should be recognized as “revenues” (and not as surplus).
Tax treatment. Regarding this, the Revenue Agency concludes that: “It must be considered, therefore, that, also for IRES purposes, the compensation obtained for the establishment of the right of surface for a fixed term, accounted for according to contractual maturity, contributes to the formation of the company’s business income as revenue (and not as a capital gain) as recorded in the financial statements.”.
Agricultural single business: agency clarifications in the event of partial transfers for the construction of agrivoltaic installations
With the response to inquiry no. 205 of 2025, the Revenue Agency addresses the qualification of the so-called “single business” (“Compendio unico”) in the case where the farmer transfers ownership or the right of surface of their land for the installation by third parties of photovoltaic systems.
A professional agricultural entrepreneur, sole director and partner of an agricultural company, owns a unique agricultural holding. The entrepreneur is considering the sale of part of these lands for the construction of an agrivoltaic plant, which involves the installation of photovoltaic panels on greenhouses without compromising cultivation, which would continue i) in the greenhouses where the panels will be placed or ii) on other residual lands already part of the holding. They ask whether these operations would result in the loss of tax benefits provided for the unique holding, such as exemption from registration, mortgage, cadastral, and stamp duties, according to law 97/1994 and Legislative Decree 228/2001.
On this point, it should be noted that Article 5-bis of Legislative Decree No. 228 of 2001 defines the “compendio unico” as the land area necessary to achieve the minimum level of profitability established by regional rural development plans, to obtain support for investments provided for by European regulations. The transfer of agricultural land to direct farmers or professional agricultural entrepreneurs, committed to establishing and cultivating a compendio unico for at least ten years, can benefit from the aforementioned exemptions from indirect taxes. In case of violation of the obligations, the favorable regime is lost. The land and appurtenances of the compendio unico are indivisible for ten years and cannot be divided. To access the benefits, specific requirements must be met (see in particular the Circular of the Revenue Agency of May 29, 2013).
In the case subject to inquiry, the Applicant meets the necessary requirements to maintain the unique agricultural holding, highlighting the minimum level of profitability required.
The Agency has determined that the planned agrivoltaic installations would not compromise agricultural activity, allowing the use of advanced agricultural technologies. In the event of partial sale of the land, the lapse of benefits would only affect the sold land, provided the remaining land maintains the minimum profitability.
The Revenue Agency provides an opinion limited to the issue of the lapse of the benefit, without assessing the entitlement to the benefit itself.
The Supreme Court intervenes on the cadastral category of plants of “Consorzio di bonifica”
Ordinance no. 21403/2025 established the principle that the general institutional and public purposes carried out by reclamation consortia would not allow pipelines and other facilities to be classified under cadastral group E (properties with particular destinations, exempt from IMU).
Indeed, according to the Court, the destination—and thus the cadastral class—of the asset would derive from its objective characteristics and not from the public or private nature of the owner or the activity exercised by them.
Consequently, the facility under judgment must be registered in category D/7 and subject to IMU.
Let’s Talk
For a more in-depth discussion: