Alessandro Foti Archives - Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani

CRYPTO-ASSETS: THE AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF TAX INFORMATION BEGINS, WHAT IT MEANS

team valletta — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:24:25 +0000

An article by Alessandro Foti, published on Borsa&Finanza, examines the new system for the automatic exchange of tax information on crypto-assets, introduced in Italy through the implementation of the DAC8 Directive.

The aim is to strengthen tax transparency in the cryptocurrency market by enabling tax authorities to automatically collect and exchange information on crypto-asset transactions. Starting with data relating to the 2026 tax year, crypto-asset service providers, including exchanges, wallet providers and other operators, will be required to report information on their customers and transactions to the Italian Revenue Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate). The data will then be exchanged with the tax authorities of the other participating countries, making it easier to identify discrepancies between reported transactions and taxpayers’ declarations.

What are the practical implications of the new automatic exchange of tax information for taxpayers and crypto-asset service providers?

Read the full article in italian.

Download the full article.

The post CRYPTO-ASSETS: THE AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF TAX INFORMATION BEGINS, WHAT IT MEANS appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

CRYPTO-ASSETS IN ITALY: THE TAX TRANSPARENCY PHASE BEGINS WITH DAC8 AND CARF REPORTING

team valletta — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 10:46:59 +0000

The Italian crypto market is entering a new phase. While some operators are still adjusting their business models to the authorisation requirements introduced under MiCA, the tax side of the regulatory framework is also becoming operational. This is not a marginal development. The measure issued by the Italian Revenue Agency on 22 June 2026 ^[1]gives practical effect, in Italy, to the reporting architecture introduced by Legislative Decree No. 194 of 10 December 2025, which implemented Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226, commonly referred to as DAC8. It also connects the Italian system to the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, or CARF. The result is a clear shift. Crypto-assets will no longer be monitored only through the tax returns of individual taxpayers or through anti-money laundering controls. They will increasingly become part of a structured, recurring and internationally exchangeable reporting system. For taxpayers, intermediaries and advisers, this marks the point at which crypto-assets begin to resemble foreign financial accounts under the Common Reporting Standard: information is collected by reporting operators, transmitted to tax authorities and exchanged across borders.

The broader regulatory context

The timing is significant. MiCA has changed the regulatory perimeter for crypto-asset service providers operating in the European Union. In parallel, DAC8 and CARF address a different but closely connected concern: tax transparency. MiCA is primarily concerned with authorisation, supervision, investor protection and market integrity. DAC8 and CARF, by contrast, are designed to ensure that tax administrations receive information on crypto-asset users and relevant transactions. The two frameworks are not identical, but they point in the same direction. Crypto-assets are being absorbed into the ordinary infrastructure of regulated finance. The market is moving away from a phase in which crypto could be treated as a separate or opaque asset class and towards a framework in which service providers are subject to both regulatory and tax reporting obligations. The recent communications reportedly sent by Binance to Italian users, warning that Binance Italy would no longer be able to open new accounts or provide regulated cryptoasset services in Italy from 1 July 2026 pending MiCA authorisation, provide a practical illustration of this transition. At the same time, the Italian tax authorities have now put in place the operational rules for crypto-asset reporting. The message is straightforward: the compliance environment for crypto-assets is no longer theoretical.

The Italian Revenue Agency measure of 22 June 2026

The measure of 22 June 2026 sets out the implementing rules for the communication of information by reporting crypto-asset service providers. It governs, in particular:

the persons required to report;
the annual notification mechanism for providers that report in another Member State or qualifying non-EU jurisdiction;
the single registration procedure for certain crypto-asset operators;
the content and timing of the communication;
the technical transmission procedure;
the issuance of receipts and rejection notices;
the exchange of information with foreign tax authorities; and
the office responsible for certain registration-related controls.

The measure therefore does not merely restate the legislative framework. It provides the practical machinery through which the system will operate.

Who is required to report?

The reporting obligation applies to the crypto-asset service providers identified under Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 194/2025. In simplified terms, the rules are aimed at providers that are relevant for Italian reporting purposes, including those authorised or otherwise required to report in Italy under the criteria set out in the legislative decree. The measure also recognises the possibility of avoiding duplicate reporting. Providers that satisfy equivalent due diligence and reporting obligations in another EU Member State or in a qualifying non-EU jurisdiction may be exempted from reporting to the Italian Revenue Agency, provided that they submit the required notification. This exemption is not automatic in practical terms. The provider must notify the Italian Revenue Agency annually, within the deadline for filing the communication, that it fulfils equivalent reporting and due diligence obligations elsewhere. The notification must include identifying data, any Italian tax code where available, foreign tax identification numbers where relevant, and an indication of the jurisdiction in which equivalent obligations are performed. This mechanism is important for cross-border groups and platforms operating across several jurisdictions. It confirms that the Italian framework is designed to integrate with the wider DAC8 and CARF architecture, but it also requires careful monitoring of the jurisdiction in which the reporting obligation is actually discharged.

Registration obligations for CAOs

The measure also addresses the position of CAOs, namely crypto-asset operators identified under Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 194/2025. Non-resident CAOs that do not already have access credentials for the Italian Revenue Agency’s electronic services must request them online through the Revenue Agency’s website. The procedure is made available in English and is handled through the dedicated DAC8 registration functionality. Once registered, the CAO receives an individual identification number, or IIN. The registration data are then communicated by the Italian Revenue Agency to the secure central register established at EU level. The registration procedure requires the communication of several items of information, including the operator’s name or corporate name, postal address, electronic address, websites, Italian tax code where available, other tax identification numbers, the Member States in which reportable users are resident, and any relevant qualifying non-EU jurisdiction. The rules also deal with amendments, transfers of registration to another Member State and cancellation from the register. This is relevant because crypto-asset operators often change their operating structure or regulatory footprint across jurisdictions. The Italian framework therefore does not treat registration as a static event, but as an ongoing compliance status.

What information must be reported?

The reporting communication must include identifying information on the reporting provider and the information required under Article 13 of Legislative Decree No. 194/2025. In practical terms, the system is designed to capture data on reportable crypto-asset users, their tax residence, tax identification number and, for entities, relevant controlling persons. It also covers information relating to crypto-asset transactions. This is the core policy development. The focus is not limited to whether an Italian resident taxpayer has declared a crypto-asset position in his or her tax return. The framework introduces a third-party reporting channel, under which data are collected and transmitted by the service provider. The reporting perimeter is therefore potentially broad. It covers information that can allow tax authorities to connect users, tax residence and transactions. It also brings cryptoassets closer to the reporting logic already familiar from financial account reporting. For taxpayers, this means that inconsistencies between tax returns and data reported by crypto-asset service providers may become easier to identify. For providers, it means that onboarding, due diligence, tax residence collection and transaction data classification will become key compliance processes.

Timing: first reporting by 30 June 2027

The calendar is now clear. The first information must be communicated by 30 June 2027. This first filing will relate to the 2026 reporting period. Thereafter, the annual deadline will remain 30 June of the calendar year following the year to which the communication relates. Communications submitted after the deadline are considered late. The measure also provides for the possibility of making a new submission within 30 days of the ordinary deadline, including following a rejection notice. Where a file is rejected, the provider must submit again all positions to be reported. This is a practical point that should not be underestimated. The filing is not merely a formality. Providers will need to ensure that their data extraction, validation, XML preparation and transmission procedures are in place well before the deadline. The Revenue Agency will make available a receipt confirming the outcome of the submission. The receipt may indicate either acceptance or rejection. Unless force majeure applies, the receipt should be made available within five working days following the protocol date of the file.

Transmission procedure

The communication must be transmitted through the Italian Revenue Agency’s electronic channels, namely Entratel or Fisconline, either directly or through authorised intermediaries. The files must be prepared in XML format according to the technical specifications attached to the measure. The Revenue Agency may update the technical annexes through publication on its website if changes are needed to improve the compilation or transmission process. This creates a compliance requirement that is both legal and technological. Reporting providers will need to connect legal classification, tax due diligence, customer data, transaction systems and technical reporting formats. In practice, the most delicate issues are likely to arise not only from the transmission itself, but from the quality of the underlying data. Providers will need to ensure that tax residence information, tax identification numbers, entity classifications and controlling person data are collected and maintained in a manner consistent with the reporting standard.

Exchange of information by 30 September

The information collected by the Italian Revenue Agency will be exchanged with the competent authorities of the Member States and relevant jurisdictions of residence of the reportable users. The first exchange of information will take place by 30 September 2027. Thereafter, the exchange will take place by 30 September of the year following the year to which the reported information relates. This is the step that gives the regime its real force. The system is not purely domestic. It is designed to feed into a cross-border network of automatic exchange of information. For Italian resident taxpayers using foreign platforms, this may mean that information collected abroad will reach the Italian tax authorities through the DAC8/CARF exchange mechanism. Conversely, information collected in Italy may be sent to foreign tax authorities where the reportable user is tax resident elsewhere. This mirrors the evolution already seen in the field of foreign bank accounts. Once a multilateral information network becomes operational, tax compliance moves from a selfreporting model to a data-driven model.

The role of the Centro Operativo di Pescara

The measure identifies the Centro Operativo di Pescara, or COP, as the office responsible for certain control activities relating to registration and communication obligations of CAOs. The COP is competent, among other things, for the issuance of cancellation measures and for the management of disputes concerning acts issued in the exercise of those activities. The measure also provides for a specific escalation mechanism where a registered CAO fails to submit the required communication. Within 30 days from the ordinary deadline, the COP identifies registered CAOs that have not submitted the communication and invites them to comply within 60 days. If they still fail to comply, a second reminder is sent, granting a further 30 days. If the CAO remains non-compliant, the COP proceeds with revocation of the registration. This shows that the regime is not limited to data collection. It includes an administrative control mechanism designed to ensure that registered operators actually comply with their reporting obligations.

Data protection

The measure also addresses the processing of personal data. The Italian Revenue Agency is identified as the data controller for the personal data contained in the notifications, registrations and communications. The processing is carried out for the performance of tasks in the public interest, the exercise of public authority and the implementation of obligations deriving from DAC8 and the domestic implementing legislation. The measure also refers to the involvement of Sogei S.p.A. as technological partner and processor and confirms that a data protection impact assessment has been carried out. This aspect is relevant because DAC8 and CARF reporting necessarily involves significant volumes of personal and financial data. The regime therefore requires a balance between tax transparency and data protection safeguards.

Practical implications for providers

For reporting crypto-asset service providers, the new framework will require a structured compliance project. Key workstreams should include:

identifying whether the provider falls within the Italian reporting perimeter;
assessing whether reporting will be made in Italy or in another Member State or qualifying non-EU jurisdiction;
managing any annual notification to the Italian Revenue Agency;
obtaining access to the Revenue Agency’s electronic services where needed;
completing the single registration procedure where applicable;
reviewing onboarding and tax residence self-certification processes;
collecting and validating tax identification numbers;
identifying entity users and controlling persons;
mapping reportable crypto-asset transactions;
preparing XML reporting files in accordance with the Italian technical specifications; and
establishing internal procedures for receipts, rejections, corrections and late submissions.

Providers should also consider governance. DAC8/CARF reporting is not simply an IT exercise. It requires coordination between legal, tax, compliance, operations and technology teams.

Practical implications for taxpayers

For taxpayers, the main implication is that crypto-asset information will increasingly be available to tax authorities through third-party reporting and international exchange. Italian resident individuals and entities should therefore review the consistency of their tax positions, including:

reporting of crypto-assets for Italian tax monitoring purposes;
taxation of capital gains and other income connected with crypto-assets;
valuation methods and supporting documentation;
historic positions in years of uncertainty;
transfers between exchanges and self-custody wallets;
records of acquisitions, disposals and exchanges; and
alignment between declared positions and information held by service providers.

The new reporting framework does not itself create the substantive tax rules for cryptoassets. Those rules are found elsewhere in Italian tax legislation. However, the reporting framework changes the enforcement environment. Data availability increases, and so does the likelihood that undeclared or inconsistent positions may be identified.

Conclusion

The Italian Revenue Agency’s measure of 22 June 2026 is an important step in the normalisation of crypto-assets within the tax system. The first reporting deadline, 30 June 2027, may appear distant. In practice, however, the 2026 reporting period is already the first period to be captured. Providers need to prepare their systems and procedures now. Taxpayers should also assume that the era of limited visibility is coming to an end. After MiCA, DAC8 and CARF complete another part of the picture. Crypto-assets are no longer outside the ordinary tax transparency framework. They are becoming part of it.

Download the article.

[1] https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/documents/20143/10157754/Provvedimento+DAC8+del+22+giugno+ 2026.pdf/4766b3fc –1a9a –3978 –47ba –3c98108d079b?t=1782139788539

The post CRYPTO-ASSETS IN ITALY: THE TAX TRANSPARENCY PHASE BEGINS WITH DAC8 AND CARF REPORTING appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

DONATIONS, FORCED HEIRS AND THIRD PARTIES. ARTICLE 44 LAW 182/2025 REDESIGNS THE PLAYING FIELD

team valletta — Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:14:44 +0000

Introduction

Article 44 of Law 2 December 2025, no. 182 in force as of 18 December 2025 (“Law 182/2025”) [1], recasts the remedies available in the context of Italian forced heirship rules[2][3], shifting the protection of forced heirs from property-based remedies to monetary claims. The stated objective of Article 44 is to facilitate the circulation of gifted real estate and access to credit. [4] The market implications are significant, given that annual real-estate donations in Italy are estimated at over 200,000, representing a substantial share of the national housing stock. [5] This reform aligns Italy with the solutions that are prevailing in the EU, as reflected in Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 [6] and domestic models such as the German Pflichtteil [7]. Read together with Legislative Decree No. 139/2024 on the rationalization and self-assessment of inheritance, registration and donation taxes, Article 44 marks a broader shift towards a more predictable, bankable framework for both inter vivos and mortis causa transfers.

From an overprotected bloodline to a compensation-based system

To grasp the significance of new Article 44, one must first appreciate the legal background of the previous regime. For around one a half century, anyone buying previously donated real estate could, years later, be compelled to hand it back to the donor’s heirs. This rationale was to prioritized the bloodline-based forced heirship principle over the free movement of real estate and the good-faith purchaser’s position. Under the former rules, a forced heir whose reserved share was impaired could bring an “action for reduction” against the donee and, if the donee’s assets were insufficient to satisfy the forced heir’s entitlement, could then sue the subsequent acquirers through an “action for claw-back/restitution” (Articles 561, 562 and 563 Civil Code). The forced heir held a right, armed with ius sequelae, i.e. a right attached to the property through all subsequent transfers, with the potential to unravel mortgages and other security interests granted in favor of good-faith third parties. It is precisely this mechanism that Article 44 dismantles recasting Articles 561, 562, 563, 2652 and 2690 of the Civil Code.

Article 563 Civil Code. Obligation of the donee and liability of gratuitous transferees

The key innovation is to be found in the amendment to Article 563 of the Civil Code. Under the former rules, the forced heir was entitled to restitution of the donated real estate – even if it had been sold to a third party – where the donee’s assets were insufficient to satisfy the forced heir’s entitlement, provided that no more than twenty years had elapsed since registration with the Land Register [8] of the donation. The new rule provides instead that an action for reduction of a donation does not prejudice third parties who have acquired the property from the donee for value, provided that the purchaser has registered the deed of acquisition before the forced heir has registered the claim for reduction (Article 2652(1) Civil Code). In such cases, the forced heirs are entitled to obtain from the donee monetary compensation to the extent necessary to reinstate their reserved share or, where the donee is insolvent and has transferred the asset by gratuitous transfer, to obtain monetary compensation from the transferee within the limits of the benefit received. Protection of the forced heir is therefore not abolished but converted into a monetary claim against the donee, equal to what is needed to restore their reserved share. The legislature thus trades in-kind protection for greater legal certainty and stability. For practical purposes, the focus of legal advice shifts. For a forced heir, the issue is no longer who holds the asset – since the third-party purchaser is structurally protected – but whether the donee (and, where relevant, their gratuitous transferees) is solvent. The effectiveness of the remedy depends on the debtor’s financial health. The same framework extends to registered movables, coordinated with Article 2690, which now aligns the protection afforded where the transferor is a donee with that provided where the transferor is an heir or legatee. In this connection, it is recalled that registered movables are not only vehicles, but likewise vessel and aircraft whose value may evidently be considerable.

The new Articles 561 and 2652 Civil Code. Encumbrances, mortgages and the end of symmetry between donee and legatee

The intervention on Article 561 Civil Code is less visible, but equally relevant. Under the former rules:

The first sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code provided that, where an action for reduction of a donation was brought, the immovable property had to be restored to the estate free from any encumbrances or mortgages created by the legatee or the donee. This “cleansing” effect applied only if the claim for reduction was registered within ten years from the opening of the succession pursuant to Article 2652(1)(8). Once that period had elapsed, any rights acquired for value by third parties under an instrument registered before the claim for reduction were preserved, even in the face of a judgment upholding the action.
The second sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code provided that encumbrances and mortgages remain effective only if the action for reduction is brought more than twenty years after registration of the donation, subject, however, to the donee’s obligation to compensate the forced heirs in money for the reduced value of the assets where the claim for reduction is brought within ten years from the opening of the succession.

Following the amendments, the regime set out in the first sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code remains applicable only where it is the legatee who has encumbered the property to be restored with charges and/or mortgages. This provision should be read together with Article 2652(1)(8) Civil Code, also as amended, which requires registration of claims for reduction of testamentary dispositions infringing the reserved share. That provision now stipulates that the action (in practice, the restitution remedy) is always enforceable against purchasers from the heir or legatee for three years from the opening of the succession. The reform thus cuts from ten to three years within which the forced heir must register the claim to keep it effective against third parties acquiring the property from the heir or legatee and clarifies that this regime governs conflicts between the forced heir and such third parties. Thereafter, priority depends on which is registered first: the claim for reduction or the third party’s acquisition. An immediate effect should be to facilitate the circulation of immovable property acquired mortis causa, by reducing from ten to three years the timeframe during which the action for reduction can be asserted against third parties – mirroring the solution adopted for registered movables in Article 2690(1)(5) Civil Code. By contrast, under the amended second sentence of Article 561(1) Civil Code, encumbrances and mortgages created by the donee over the property remain effective, and the donee is required to compensate the injured forced heirs in money for the lower value of the assets, within the limit necessary to restore their reserved share. This is without prejudice, pursuant to Article 2652(1)(1), to the protection of rights acquired by third parties who registered their rights over the property before the claim for reduction. A simplified regime is thus introduced, as compared with the rules laid down in the second sentence of Article 561(1) of the Civil Code. In substance, under the amended Article 561 Civil Code:

For the legatee, nothing changes in principle. Any property restored as a result of an action for reduction must be returned free of encumbrances and mortgages created by the legatee, subject to a re-balancingrule, introducing the three-year term from the opening of the succession, beyond which third-party acquirers from the heir or legatee who have registered before the claim are in any case protected.
For the donee, the principle is reversed. Encumbrances and mortgages created by the donee on assets subject to restitution remain effective. The “cleansing” effect of the action for restitution is shifted onto the donee’s estate, which must compensate forced heirs in money for the reduced value of the encumbered asset, to the extent needed to reintegrate their share.

For the real-estate market, the message is that a mortgage granted to a bank over property deriving from a donation no longer risks vanishing because of an action for reduction. It is exposed only – like any other claim – to the debtor’s insolvency. A further, less visible feature is the extension of this model to registered movables and even to unregistered movables. The new Article 561 expressly refers to movables recorded in public registers and, in a newly added sentence, to unregistered movables. This is a systemic move in the sense that legal protection of assets arising from succession is no longer one of “variable-geometry” depending on the nature of the asset.

Article 562 Civil Code and the estate reduction

Article 562 Civil Code, often nearly forgotten in legal textbooks, returns to the foreground. In its amended form, it provides that if the donated property has perished through the fault of the donee or of his or her successors, or if a situation arises where the property can no longer be effectively seized (typically because it is burdened with enforceable mortgages or transferred to third parties protected under Article 563), and the donee is insolvent, the unrecoverable value is deducted from the estate. This occurs “without prejudice to the claims of the forced heir and of prior donees against the insolvent donee”. By this provision, a subtle exercise in engineering the calculation of the forced share is introduced. On the one hand, it avoids locking forced heirs into a permanent reduction of their share owing to “evaporated” donations; on the other, it confirms that the natural means of protection is the obligation relationship between forced heir and donee, not the rights in rem over the property. The system thus remains coherent with Articles 536 et seq. Civil Code (forced heirship) and with the mathematical structure underpinning calculation of the reserved share.

Transitional rules. A six-month window of high-stakes litigation

Paragraph 2 of Article 44 introduces a transitional regime.

Successions opened after entry into force. The new rules apply in full, so that no further “at-risk” situations for third-party purchasers should arise in the future.
Successions already opened at the date of entry into force. These remain governed by the old regime, but only if:

a claim for reduction has already been served and registered; or
such claim is served and registered within six months from entry into force; or
within the same term an out-of-court notice of opposition to the donation is served and registered, following the pattern already known under former Article 563, fourth paragraph, Civil Code.

In the absence of any such steps within the six-month window, the new regime extends even to earlier successions, producing a kind of “general amnesty” for past donations. At least two consequences stand out:

For several years, two “stocks” of donated properties will coexist: those still exposed to possible actions for restitution (because protected by opposition or a registered claim) and those fully “clean”. Due diligence will need to check not only the date of the succession, but also the presence of any registrations or oppositions within the relevant six-month period.
Oppositions already registered before the reform remain fully effective, as paragraph 2 expressly confirms by referring to former Article 563; this means that potential litigation remain in place and will continue to follow the old rules for many years.

Insurance features

It is finally recalled that, under the old regime, there existed a florid market for expensive insurance to cover the risk of third-party acquirers if an action for restitution by forced heirs against donees and legatees proved successful. With new regime, much emphasis is taken away from the issue, and this particular incidental cost hampering the circulation of immovables ought to fade away. Takeaways Within a few months, transactional practice will look very different. In sales of property derived from donations, clauses making completion conditional on insurance or waivers from forced heirs will become the exception rather than the rule. Notarial and banking due diligence will focus on checking the registers for claims for reduction and notices of opposition, rather than tracing back the remote history of the donor’s family. In wealth-planning strategies, the straightforward donation – long viewed as a double-edged sword – may regain ground over more complex structures (family settlement agreements, trusts, corporate holding vehicles), at least for medium-high-net-worth clients seeking simple, financeable solutions. A political-legal question remains: how far can the reserved share be compressed without betraying its social function? The reform does not abolish forced heirship, but it profoundly alters its grammar: from the language of assets to that of money. It will fall to the courts – and, even earlier, to the practices of leading law firms and notaries – to determine whether this new equilibrium between family conflict and market efficiency can withstand the test of real-world cases.

Download the article.

[1] Article 44, “Simplifications to facilitate the legal circulation of assets originating from donations”, 182/2025, “Provisions for the simplification and digitalisation of processes concerning economic activities and services for citizens and businesses”, published in Official Gazette no. 281 of 3 December 2025.[2] The provisions of the Italian Civil Code (Art. 536 et seq.) stipulate that a deceased person may freely dispose of only part of his or her estate (the so-called porzione disponibile), while the remainder (the porzione legittima or legittima) is mandatorily reserved to certain close family members (the so-called legittimari or “forced heirs” – namely, the spouse, the civil partner, the descendants and, in their absence, the ascendants). The deceased may not impair that reserved share during his or her lifetime, whether by making inter vivos gifts or by drawing up a will in which those privileged relatives are omitted (i.e. pretermitted) or even expressly disinherited through testamentary provisions that allocate the estate to other persons. [3] The action for reduction is the remedy typically available to forced heirs to obtain reinstatement of their reserved share where it has been impaired by donations or testamentary dispositions exceeding the portion of which the testator was free to dispose. With specific regard to donations, Article 555 of the Civil Code provides that any gift whose value exceeds the portion of which the deceased could freely dispose is subject to reduction within the limits of that portion. Donations are reduced starting from the most recent and then, progressively, going back to earlier ones (Article 559 Civil Code). Where the subject-matter of the donation is an immovable asset, it is necessary, where possible, to carve out from the asset the part required to reinstate the reserved share; if this is not possible, the legatee or donee who holds asset to an extent in excess of more than one fourth of the disposable portion is required to restore the immovable property to the estate, without prejudice to the right to receive its value. Conversely, if the excess does not exceed one fourth, the done or legatee may retain the property, compensating the forced heirs in cash (Article 560 Civil Code). The rules governing the claw-back (or restitution) actions of immovables because of the reduction of a donation, and the action against the successors in title of donees subject to reduction, are set out, respectively, in Articles 561 and 563 Civil Code, which are the provisions amended by Article 44 of Law 182/2025. [4] Article 44, paragraph 1, Law 182/2025 reads in English as follows “With a view to fostering competition in the real estate market and in the market for security interests, and to facilitating the legal circulation of assets and rights derived from donations and subsequently acquired by third parties, thereby ensuring greater simplicity and certainty of legal relations and affording broader and more flexible opportunities for access to credit in respect of such assets where they are encumbered by security interests…”. [5] See the preparatory and explanatory works on Article 44 (http://www.senato.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:senato-it:parl:ddl:senato;19.legislatura;1184; http://www.camera.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:camera-it:parlamento:scheda.progetto.legge:camera;19.legislatura;2655 ) as well as the studies carried out by the National Council of Notaries https://dsn.notariato.it/dsn/contenuti/dettagli-materiali/2024/Analisi/dettagli-donazioni.html [6] Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession. [7] Sections 2303 et seq. of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) on the Pflichtteilsrecht, under which the compulsory portion is structured as a monetary claim against the heirs, not as a right in rem over specific assets. [8] By registration (“trascrizione”), reference is made to the form of publicity that makes certain facts, acts, legal transactions and judicial measures publicly knowable. In particular, as regards immovable property and registered movables, registration with the land or other competent register of a deed allows enforceability against third parties claiming rights over the same property by virtue of a subsequently registered deed.

The post DONATIONS, FORCED HEIRS AND THIRD PARTIES. ARTICLE 44 LAW 182/2025 REDESIGNS THE PLAYING FIELD appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

FROM ACQUISITION TO DEPLOYMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS: OBLIGATIONS AND COMPLIANCE UNDER THE AI ACT AND THE GDPR – 17 July 2025

team valletta — Thu, 17 Jul 2025 11:13:25 +0000

On the occasion of the webinar organized by our Firm in collaboration with the Italian-Swedish Chamber of Commerce Assosvezia, several key aspects related to the adoption of artificial intelligence systems in companies were explored together with Alessandro Foti, Jacopo Piemonte, Ugo Romano (CEO of Dyna Brains), Armando Ambrosio, and Massimo Caiazza.

In particular, the discussion focused on:

Strategies and roadmaps to reduce risks and create value
Contracts, policies, and governance for responsible AI use
The interplay between the AI Act and GDPR, with a focus on practical implications for developers and users

The post FROM ACQUISITION TO DEPLOYMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS: OBLIGATIONS AND COMPLIANCE UNDER THE AI ACT AND THE GDPR – 17 July 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

TAXES IN BUSINESS – May 20, 2025

team valletta — Tue, 20 May 2025 10:14:15 +0000

The webinar “Taxes in Business”, organized by the University of Warsaw, took place on May 20.

Among the speakers was our very own Alessandro Foti, who explored the topic of tax incentives throughout the entire life cycle of an international business—from the initial investment to the generational transition.

In his presentation, he emphasized how the ongoing alignment of Italian tax legislation with OECD best practices and EU regulations, along with more effective cooperation between the Italian tax authorities and taxpayers, are key strengths of our jurisdiction. These elements contribute to greater legal certainty and make Italy more attractive to investors.

It was a valuable opportunity to engage with professionals from other jurisdictions, to tackle the challenges and seize the opportunities of doing business internationally—while also highlighting the importance of succession planning within family-owned enterprises.

The post TAXES IN BUSINESS – May 20, 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

EUROPEAN REGULATION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI ACT): WHERE DO WE STAND? – 8 May 2025

team valletta — Thu, 08 May 2025 13:19:20 +0000

On Thursday, May 8, we hosted the event “European Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act): Where Do We Stand?”, organized by our Firm in collaboration with the Italian-Swedish Chamber of Commerce Assosvezia and Horizon Security.

Speakers Alessandro Foti, Jacopo Piemonte, Massimiliano Luraghi, Fabio Ferraro and Armando Ambrosio explored the main aspects of the AI Act, with a particular focus on the obligations and prohibitions already in force under the regulation.

Two key thematic areas:

Technical aspects: A closer look at how AI systems actually work, with insights from our partners at @Horizon Security.
Regulatory compliance: A deep dive into the obligations and prohibitions already in effect, which companies should have already started integrating into their compliance processes.

The post EUROPEAN REGULATION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI ACT): WHERE DO WE STAND? – 8 May 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

RIFORMA DOGANE, CHANCE PER GLI STUDI

marketude — Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:27:06 +0000

Alessandro Foti ha fornito il suo punto punto di vista nell'articolo di Massimiliano Carbonaro "Riforma dogane, chance per gli studi" pubblicato su Il Sole 24 Ore

«Le imprese che seguiamo stanno già lavorando per la piena compliance verso la riforma anche se mantengono comunque interesse a conoscere la posizione delle autorità doganali su alcuni temi controversi commenta l'avvocato Alessandro Foti, associate di De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani - quali ad esempio l'espressa qualificazione dell'Iva all'importazione come diritto di confine (e non come tributo interno). Sin dalla prima approvazione della riforma, a marzo, per rilevare, valutare e minimizzare eventuali rischi abbiamo svolto una verifica con i nostri clienti dei processi documentali e operativi legati agli scambi internazionali».

VAI ALL'ARTICOLO COMPLETO

The post RIFORMA DOGANE, CHANCE PER GLI STUDI appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

REGOLAMENTO SULL’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: CASI PRATICI PER GUIDARE LE IMPRESE NELL’IMPLEMENTAZIONE – July 10th, 2024

marketude — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:58:25 +0000

Partecipa al nostro prossimo evento/breakfast, in collaborazione con Camera di Commercio Italo-Svedese Assosvezia, in tema di Artificial Intelligence!

🗓️ mercoledì 10 luglio 2024,
🕔 a partire dalle ore 09:00

Sarà possibile seguire l’evento:
📍 in presenza presso De Berti Jacchia, ingresso da Via Agnello 6/1, Milano
💻 via webinar | Zoom

I professionisti dello Studio De Berti Jacchia, Alessandro Foti, Jacopo Piemonte, Adriano Garofalo, Giulia Beneduci, Silvia Bolognani e Federico Aluigi, offriranno un approfondimento pratico su come le imprese possono affrontare e implementare l’atteso Regolamento sull’Intelligenza Artificiale.

Attraverso l’analisi di case study concreti, i partecipanti riceveranno preziosi consigli per allinearsi a questo rivoluzionario strumento legislativo.

Inoltre, avremo il piacere di ospitare ReD OPEN – Spin-off Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca con Massimo V.A. Manzari, che esporrà i prerequisiti organizzativi necessari per la compliance con il Regolamento.

L'evento è stato accreditato presso l'Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano e dà diritto a n. 1 crediti formativi.

REGISTRATI IN PRESENZA

REGISTRATI PER WEBINAR

The post REGOLAMENTO SULL’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: CASI PRATICI PER GUIDARE LE IMPRESE NELL’IMPLEMENTAZIONE – July 10th, 2024 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

ZES UNICA: IL DECRETO ATTUATIVO E LA COMUNICAZIONE PER L’ACCESSO AL CREDITO D’IMPOSTA

marketude — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:08:51 +0000

Disciplinate le modalità di accesso al credito d’imposta per gli investimenti nella ZES unica con decreto 17 maggio 2024 e pubblicato l’apposito modello di “Comunicazione per la fruizione del credito d’imposta per gli investimenti nella Zes unica” con provvedimento del direttore dell’agenzia delle entrate dell’11 giugno 2024.

Credito d’imposta per investimenti nella ZES unica

L’art. 16, D.L. n. 124/2023 concede, per il 2024, alle imprese che acquisiscono beni strumentali destinati a strutture produttive ubicate nelle zone assistite delle regioni del Sud, un contributo, sotto forma di credito d’imposta, nella misura massima consentita dalla Carta degli aiuti a finalità regionale 2022-2027 e nel limite massimo di spesa definito.

Sono agevolabili gli investimenti relativi all’acquisto, anche in locazione finanziaria, di nuovi macchinari, impianti e attrezzature varie, destinati a strutture produttive già esistenti o che vengono impiantate nel territorio, nonché all’acquisto di terreni e all’acquisizione, realizzazione o ampliamento di immobili strumentali agli investimenti.

Il decreto in commento definisce i criteri e le modalità di applicazione e di fruizione del beneficio e dei relativi controlli mentre il modello di comunicazione previsto per la procedura deve ancora essere approvato.

Si segnala che per le imprese del settore agricolo e della pesca è stato istituito apposito credito di imposta ZES Unica Mezzogiorno (art.16-bis nel D.L. n.124/2023,) la cui operatività dipende da un decreto attuativo in via di emanazione. Per maggiori dettagli si rinvia alla nostra specifica nota informativa.

Soggetti

Imprese che acquisiscono beni strumentali destinati a strutture produttive ubicate nelle zone assistite di Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sicilia, Sardegna e Molise, ammissibili alla deroga ex art. 107, par. 3, lett. a), del Trattato sul funzionamento dell’UE, e dell’Abruzzo, ammissibili alla deroga prevista dalla lett. c) della norma citata.

Misura

La misura della agevolazione varia in funzione delle dimensioni dell’impresa, dell’ammontare dell’investimento e della regione come di seguito schematizzato:

		Dimensione impresa
		Piccola		Media		Grande
		Investimento
	Regione	<=€50 mio	>€50 mio	<=€50 mio	>€50 mio	<=€50 mio	>€50 mio
a)	▪ Calabria ▪ Campania ▪ Puglia (esclusi territori lett. b) ▪ Sicilia	60%	40%	50%	40%	40%	40%
b)	▪ Puglia*	70%	50%	60%	50%	50%	50%
c)	▪ Basilicata ▪ Molise ▪ Sardegna (esclusi territori lett. d)	50%	30%	40%	30%	30%	30%
d)	▪ Sardegna**	60%	40%	50%	40%	40%	40%
e)	▪ Abruzzo***	35%	15%	25%	15%	15%	15%
* Area della Provincia di Taranto, territori individuati ai fini del sostegno del fondo per una transizione giusta nella regione Area della Provincia del Sulcis Iglesiente, territori individuati ai fini del sostegno del fondo per una transizione giusta nella regione * Zone assistite della regione Abruzzo indicate dalla vigente Carta degli aiuti a finalità regionale 2022-2027

Per i progetti con costi >50 milioni di euro l’aiuto deve essere calcolato secondo il metodo dell’importo di aiuto corretto^[1].

Sono agevolabili gli investimenti il cui costo complessivo dei beni non sia inferiore a 200.000 euro nè superiore 100 milioni di euro.

L’ammontare massimo del credito d’imposta fruibile è pari al credito d’imposta richiesto moltiplicato per la percentuale che sarà resa nota con provvedimento dell’Agenzia delle Entrate, ottenuta rapportando lo stanziamento previsto, pari a 1,8 miliardi di euro (a cui, ai sensi dell’art. 7, D.L. n. 63/2024, deve essere sottratta la somma complessiva di 130 milioni di euro da versare), all’ammontare complessivo dei crediti d’imposta richiesti. La percentuale sarà pari al 100% nel caso in cui l’ammontare complessivo del credito d’imposta richiesto risulti inferiore alle risorse stanziate.

Calcolo

Il credito d’imposta è commisurato alla quota del costo complessivo dei beni acquistati o, in caso di investimenti immobiliari, realizzati dal 1° gennaio 2024 al 15 novembre 2024 nel limite massimo, per ciascun progetto di investimento, di 100 milioni di euro.
Investimenti in locazione finanziaria: si assume il costo sostenuto dal locatore per l’acquisto dei beni; tale costo non comprende le spese di manutenzione.

Investimenti agevolabili

Sono quelli facenti parte di un progetto di investimento iniziale, relativi all’acquisto, anche in locazione finanziaria, di nuovi macchinari, impianti e attrezzature varie, destinati a strutture produttive già esistenti o che vengono impiantate nel territorio, nonché all’acquisto di terreni e all’acquisizione, realizzazione o ampliamento di immobili strumentali agli investimenti.

Valore terreni e immobili: non può superare il 50% del valore complessivo dell’investimento agevolato.

Immobili strumentali: sono agevolabili anche i beni già utilizzati per svolgere attività economica.

Sono esclusi i beni:

autonomamente destinati alla vendita;
trasformati o assemblati per ottenere prodotti destinati alla vendita;
materiali di consumo.

Determinazione momento effettuazione investimenti e valore beni agevolabili: si tiene conto degli artt. 109, commi 1 e 2, e 110 del TUIR, a prescindere dai principi contabili adottati.

Acquisizioni agevolabili:

tra i soggetti non devono sussistere rapporti di controllo o collegamento e, comunque;
realizzate a condizioni di mercato.

Commisurazione credito d’imposta: quota costo complessivo dei beni, nel limite massimo, per ogni progetto, di 100 milioni di euro.

Per gli investimenti effettuati in leasing si assume il costo sostenuto dal locatore per l’acquisto dei beni al netto delle spese di manutenzione.

Certificazione revisore legale: l’effettivo sostenimento delle spese e la loro corrispondenza alla documentazione contabile predisposta dall’impresa devono risultare da apposita certificazione rilasciata dal soggetto incaricato della revisione legale dei conti. (riguarda anche imprese non obbligate a revisione legale).

Settori esclusi

Industria siderurgica, carbonifera e della lignite; trasporti, esclusi i settori del magazzinaggio e del supporto ai trasporti (come specificato dalla legge di conversione), e relative infrastrutture; produzione, stoccaggio, trasmissione e distribuzione di energia e infrastrutture energetiche; banda larga; creditizio, finanziario e assicurativo.

Imprese in stato di liquidazione o di scioglimento e imprese in difficoltà.

Per l’individuazione settore di appartenenza rileva il codice attività, della tabella ATECO 2024, indicato nella comunicazione, riferibile alla struttura produttiva presso cui è realizzato l’investimento da agevolare.

Recapture

Mancata entrata in funzione

Se i beni oggetto di agevolazione non entrano in funzione entro il secondo periodo d’imposta successivo a quello della loro acquisizione o ultimazione, il credito d’imposta è rideterminato, escludendo il costo dei beni non entrati in funzione.

Dismissione

Se, entro il quinto periodo d’imposta successivo a quello nel quale sono entrati in funzione, i beni sono dismessi, ceduti a terzi, destinati a finalità estranee all’esercizio dell’impresa o destinati a strutture produttive diverse da quelle che hanno dato diritto all’agevolazione, il credito d’imposta è rideterminato, escludendo il costo di tali beni.

Beni acquisiti in locazione finanziaria: tali disposizioni si applicano anche se non è esercitato il riscatto.

Il credito d’imposta è concesso nel rispetto dei limiti e delle condizioni previsti dal Reg. (UE) n. 651/2014 della Commissione, del 17 giugno 2014.

Le imprese beneficiarie devono mantenere la loro attività nelle aree di impianto nelle zone assistite, nelle quali è stato realizzato l’investimento agevolato, per almeno 5 anni dopo il completamento dell’investimento, pena la revoca dei benefici concessi e goduti.

Accesso al credito d’imposta

Dal 12 giugno al 12 luglio 2024, è necessario presentare il Modello di comunicazione^[2] approvato dall’ Agenzia delle entrate indicando, tra l’altro, le spese:

sostenute dal 1° gennaio 2024;
che si prevede di sostenere fino al 15 novembre 2024.

Entro lo stesso arco temporale è possibile:

inviare nuova comunicazione, sostitutiva della precedente;

Attenzione: l’ultima comunicazione validamente trasmessa sostituisce tutte le precedenti.
rinunciare integralmente al credito d’imposta comunicato.

Investimenti realizzati inferiori a quelli comunicati: dal 3 febbraio al 14 marzo 2025, comunicazione ad Agenzia entrate degli investimenti realizzati e del relativo credito d’imposta maturato (se, in base alle comunicazioni ricevute, la percentuale è inferiore al 100%, l’Agenzia la ridetermina).

Altri aiuti di Stato e de minimis: con le comunicazioni, si deve dichiarare:

la fruizione relativa agli stessi costi;
che il relativo cumulo non determina il superamento dell’intensità di aiuto più elevata, o dell’importo di aiuto più elevato, consentita dalla disciplina UE.

Restituzione

Il credito d’imposta indebitamente utilizzato rispetto all’importo rideterminato è restituito mediante versamento da eseguire entro il termine di versamento a saldo dell’imposta sui redditi dovuta per il periodo d’imposta in cui si verificano le cause di rideterminazione.

Cumulo

Il credito d’imposta è cumulabile con aiuti de minimis e con altri aiuti di Stato aventi ad oggetto i medesimi costi ammessi al beneficio, a condizione che tale cumulo non porti al superamento dell’intensità o dell’importo di aiuto più elevati consentiti dalle discipline europee di riferimento.

Il credito d’imposta è cumulabile con altre misure agevolative, non qualificabili aiuti di Stato.

Attenzione: resta fermo il divieto di cumulo relativo al credito d’imposta Transizione 5.0.

Utilizzo

Il credito d’imposta è utilizzabile solo in compensazione e deve essere indicato nella dichiarazione dei redditi relativa al periodo d’imposta di riconoscimento del credito e in quelle relative ai periodi d’imposta successivi, fino a quello nel quale se ne conclude l’utilizzo.

Al credito d’imposta non si applica il limite annuale di utilizzo di 250.000 euro ex art. 1, comma 53, della legge n. 244/2007.

Il Mod. F24 deve essere presentato solo attraverso i servizi telematici di Agenzia entrate, pena il rifiuto del versamento, dal giorno lavorativo successivo alla pubblicazione del provvedimento che approva la percentuale per il calcolo del credito fruibile, e, comunque, non prima della realizzazione dell’investimento.

Comunicazioni con credito d’imposta fruibile >150.000 euro: il credito è utilizzabile in esito alle verifiche antimafia. L’Agenzia comunica l’autorizzazione a utilizzare il credito, se non vi sono motivi ostativi.

Il credito d’imposta utilizzato in compensazione non deve eccedere:

l’importo fruibile, pena lo scarto del versamento;
l’importo maturato in relazione agli investimenti realizzati al momento della compensazione.

Decadenza da credito d’imposta:

accertamento insussistenza di un requisito;
documentazione con elementi non veri o false dichiarazioni.

Controlli

Investimenti: l’A.F. applica gli artt. 31 ss. del D.P.R. n. 600/1973.

Credito d’imposta indebito:

irrogazione sanzioni ex D.Lgs. n. 471/1997;
applicazione interessi;
l’Agenzia provvede con atto di recupero.

Registro nazionale aiuti di Stato

Registrazione regime aiuti: la effettua il Dipartimento delle finanze del MEF.

Registrazione aiuti individuali: provvede l’Agenzia delle entrate.

Download Article

[1] “Importo di aiuto corretto”: importo massimo di aiuto consentito per un grande progetto di investimento, calcolato secondo la seguente formula: importo massimo di aiuto = R × (A + 0,50 × B + 0 × C) dove: R è l’intensità massima di aiuto applicabile nella zona interessata stabilita in una carta degli aiuti a finalità regionale in vigore alla data in cui è concesso l’aiuto, esclusa l’intensità di aiuto maggiorata per le PMI; A sono i primi 50 milioni di EUR di costi ammissibili, B è la parte di costi ammissibili compresa tra 50 milioni di EUR e 100 milioni di EUR e C è la parte di costi ammissibili superiore a 100 milioni di EUR.

[2] Il Provvedimento di approvazione del Modello di comunicazione, il Modello e le relative istruzioni sono reperibili cliccando qui.

The post ZES UNICA: IL DECRETO ATTUATIVO E LA COMUNICAZIONE PER L’ACCESSO AL CREDITO D’IMPOSTA appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

CRIPTOVALUTE, FRODI E CRISI SOCIETARIE – TUTELE E RIMEDI – June 5th, 2024

marketude — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 17:00:22 +0000

Siamo lieti di invitarvi al nostro prossimo evento dal titolo “CRIPTOVALUTE, FRODI E CRISI SOCIETARIE – TUTELE E RIMEDI”.

🗓️ Data: mercoledì, 5 giugno 2024
🕔 Orario: a partire dalle ore 17:00

Per seguire l’evento vi saranno due modalità:
📍in presenza presso De Berti Jacchia, ingresso da Via Agnello 6/1, Milano
💻 webinar online via Zoom

L’evento è dedicato all’analisi delle novità normative europee e italiane in relazione alle tecnologie digitali e alla blockchain, con particolare attenzione alle criptovalute e ai crypto-asset.

I relatori tratteranno temi come la natura giuridica dei crypto-asset, i principali scandali e le crisi societarie nel settore, le pronunce delle corti e delle autorità di vigilanza, e l’impatto del nuovo Regolamento MiCa sui fornitori di servizi di asset virtuali (VASP) e sugli investitori.

Il seminario fornirà un approfondimento sulle nuove discipline e tutele introdotte per garantire maggiore sicurezza e trasparenza nel mercato delle criptovalute.

Tra i relatori interverranno:

👤 Armando Ambrosio – Partner di De Berti Jacchia
👤 Alessandro Foti – Senior Associate di De Berti Jacchia
👤 Paolo Barbanti Silva – Partner di De Berti Jacchia
👤 Luca CM Melchionna, Esq – Melchionna PLLC, Chair Technology and Venture Law Committee of the NYSBA Business Law Section

L’evento è stato accreditato presso l’Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano e dà diritto a n. 1 crediti formativi.

L’incontro è gratuito ed è necessario iscriversi inviando una email a eventi@dejalex.com per partecipare in presenza, oppure, iscrivendosi al form su Zoom per partecipare online.

Download Programme

The post CRIPTOVALUTE, FRODI E CRISI SOCIETARIE – TUTELE E RIMEDI – June 5th, 2024 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.