Con la sentenza n. 909/05/09 del 23 ottobre scorso, la Commissione tributaria provinciale di Lecce ha affermato che è inesistente la notifica a mezzo posta degli atti di Equitalia eseguita direttamente e non tramite agente all’uopo abilitato. E' inesistente la cartella esattoriale notificata da Equitalia a mezzo di raccomandata!
La vicenda trae origine dall’omesso versamento d’imposte (IVA, IRPEF e IRAP), contestato a un contribuente da parte dell’Amministrazione finanziaria. Essendo decorsi gli ordinari termini per il pagamento del richiesto, il Concessionario iscrive a ruolo il debito tributario e, successivamente, decorsi gli ordinari prescribed by law to register mortgaged property of the taxpayer, pursuant to art. 77, Presidential Decree No. 602/73. Such registration, ruled illegal by the same taxpayer, is this timely appeal.
The taxpayer, on appeal, as well as to question the lawfulness of the mortgage, questions the absence of notification of the measure, as this has not been notified by the notifier enabled and authorized agent.
In fact, although the art. 26, paragraph 1, DPR Sept. 29, 1973, No 602, entitled "Notification of payment forms, including the possibility for the agents of the collection, to register their documents by post by sending a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, it, however, specifically identifies as agents notify the officers of collection or other persons authorized by the licensee in the manner prescribed by law or, subject to any agreement between the municipality and the concessionaire, the messengers or agents of the municipal police. According to art. 26, paragraph 1, quoted, therefore, according to the taxpayer, the service must always be made by an agent authorized notifier, which can also make use of the postal service, and are certainly illegal in the notices served by post directly and not through duly authorized agent. However, since in the case at issue, the conditions of art. 26 cited. have not been met, the taxpayer contends that there was no notification of the contested measure.
against that exception, then, the Agent of the collection, to support the legitimacy of its actions, call, however, only the second period of the said Article. 26, first paragraph, which states that "the notification can also be done by sending a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt".
However, according to the opinion of the Commission before it, while the first sentence of paragraph 1 of art. 26 merely to identify - with a listing mandatory - the entities with a legitimate enforcement of the notification, the second period paragraph 1 would indicate the way in which the person referred to in the preceding period can run it. In practice, while remaining firm authorized entities, these, in turn, rather than directly, they may have recourse to the postal service for the service of documents.
For this reason, therefore, the Tax Commission, accepting the allegations of the taxpayer, as in the case at issue are not complied with the strict conditions of Article. 26 cited. Declaring that the notification of the decision legally non-existent.
However, in light of the statement, noting that it can be concluded, first, the decision of the CTP Lecce No 909/05/09 on 23 October scorso, risulta innovativa su un tema delicato qual è per l’appunto quello delle notifiche e, nello specifico di quelle a mezzo posta, colmo di incertezze, come da ultimo statuito dalla Suprema Corte di Cassazione, con le sentenze n. 9493 e n. 9377 del 2009, che tuttavia hanno affrontato l’argomento relativamente all’aspetto oggettivo e non, come nel caso de quo, soggettivo.
Ancor più importanti, infine, sono gli effetti che la sentenza in commento, laddove confermata dai giudici di grado superiore, potrebbe produrre nei confronti dell’Agente della riscossione, che, in ragione di tale pronuncia, assisterebbe alla dichiarazione d’inesistenza di tutte le notifiche, relative ai suoi atti, eseguite by post and not directly from person duly authorized as required by regulation, though they can pay the costs, as is the case in question. (Lecce Provincial Tax Commission, Judgement, Sec. V, 16/11/2009, No. 909)
The taxpayer, on appeal, as well as to question the lawfulness of the mortgage, questions the absence of notification of the measure, as this has not been notified by the notifier enabled and authorized agent.
In fact, although the art. 26, paragraph 1, DPR Sept. 29, 1973, No 602, entitled "Notification of payment forms, including the possibility for the agents of the collection, to register their documents by post by sending a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, it, however, specifically identifies as agents notify the officers of collection or other persons authorized by the licensee in the manner prescribed by law or, subject to any agreement between the municipality and the concessionaire, the messengers or agents of the municipal police. According to art. 26, paragraph 1, quoted, therefore, according to the taxpayer, the service must always be made by an agent authorized notifier, which can also make use of the postal service, and are certainly illegal in the notices served by post directly and not through duly authorized agent. However, since in the case at issue, the conditions of art. 26 cited. have not been met, the taxpayer contends that there was no notification of the contested measure.
against that exception, then, the Agent of the collection, to support the legitimacy of its actions, call, however, only the second period of the said Article. 26, first paragraph, which states that "the notification can also be done by sending a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt".
However, according to the opinion of the Commission before it, while the first sentence of paragraph 1 of art. 26 merely to identify - with a listing mandatory - the entities with a legitimate enforcement of the notification, the second period paragraph 1 would indicate the way in which the person referred to in the preceding period can run it. In practice, while remaining firm authorized entities, these, in turn, rather than directly, they may have recourse to the postal service for the service of documents.
For this reason, therefore, the Tax Commission, accepting the allegations of the taxpayer, as in the case at issue are not complied with the strict conditions of Article. 26 cited. Declaring that the notification of the decision legally non-existent.
However, in light of the statement, noting that it can be concluded, first, the decision of the CTP Lecce No 909/05/09 on 23 October scorso, risulta innovativa su un tema delicato qual è per l’appunto quello delle notifiche e, nello specifico di quelle a mezzo posta, colmo di incertezze, come da ultimo statuito dalla Suprema Corte di Cassazione, con le sentenze n. 9493 e n. 9377 del 2009, che tuttavia hanno affrontato l’argomento relativamente all’aspetto oggettivo e non, come nel caso de quo, soggettivo.
Ancor più importanti, infine, sono gli effetti che la sentenza in commento, laddove confermata dai giudici di grado superiore, potrebbe produrre nei confronti dell’Agente della riscossione, che, in ragione di tale pronuncia, assisterebbe alla dichiarazione d’inesistenza di tutte le notifiche, relative ai suoi atti, eseguite by post and not directly from person duly authorized as required by regulation, though they can pay the costs, as is the case in question. (Lecce Provincial Tax Commission, Judgement, Sec. V, 16/11/2009, No. 909)
0 comments:
Post a Comment