Court of Cassation, Fifth Civil Division, judgment No. 27642 of 23 October 2026: collecting the item from the post office presupposes receipt of the notice of deposit (comunicazione di avvenuto deposito, CAD) and proves that service was successful. The sixty days to challenge the tax assessment notice run from the tenth day after the CAD was sent, not from the date of collection.
Where a tax assessment notice served by post is held at the post office and the addressee collects it after the ten-day period, the time limit for appeal does not shift to the date of collection: service is deemed effected ten days after the notice of deposit (comunicazione di avvenuto deposito, CAD) was sent. The Court of Cassation so held in judgment No. 27642 of 23 October 2026. It added that collecting the item cures irregularities in the way the CAD return receipt was filled in, because it shows that the notice reached the addressee.
For tax year 2008, a taxpayer received an assessment notice attributing to her the additional income of a de facto partnership (società di fatto). She was absent at the time of delivery; the item was deposited at the post office and the CAD was sent on 29 April 2013. She collected the assessment notice on 24 May 2013 and handed in her appeal for dispatch on 13 July 2013. Both lower courts held the appeal out of time. Before the Court of Cassation, her counsel argued that service was completed only upon receipt of the CAD, not upon its dispatch, and that the CAD named an “Ufficio del Lavoro” (labour office) instead of the Revenue Agency (Agenzia delle entrate) as the requesting office. Interlocutory order No. 24164/2025 had also noted that the CAD return receipt lacked the tick confirming that the notice had been placed in the letterbox or affixed to the door.
The Court dismisses the appeal on points of law and lays down the principle: where the addressee is temporarily absent and cannot be served in person, collection of the item deposited at the post office, absent other evidence, presupposes receipt of the CAD; the addressee is therefore deemed to have full legal knowledge (piena conoscenza legale) ten days after the CAD was sent, and the notice is deemed received.
The reasoning starts from a factual premise. The addressee could not collect the item without knowing the details of the registered letter, which can only be taken from the notice left in the letterbox or from the CAD. Collection is therefore indirect proof that the notice reached its destination. The formal defect on the return receipt thus remains a mere irregularity, cured under Article 156, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure because service achieved its purpose. Once the defect is cured, Article 8, paragraph 4, of Law No. 890/1982 applies in full: service is in any event deemed effected ten days after the date on which the registered letter giving notice of deposit (the CAD) was sent, while the item can be collected for six months. Collection brings service forward only if it takes place within the ten days (Article 8, paragraph 5, in the text in force since 1 January 2019; in 2013 the same rule was in paragraph 4).
The Court makes clear that this is not a matter of relying on actual knowledge in place of legal (deemed) knowledge, but of recognising that the service procedure was successfully completed. It also takes a position on a divergence within its own case law, describing judgment No. 5178/2025 as isolated: according to that judgment, incidental knowledge of the notice does not make up for non-existent service. The Court instead follows the settled line of case law, confirmed by judgment No. 17183/2026, under which full actual knowledge of the notice can make up for the non-existence of service, since service is a condition of effectiveness and not a requirement for the existence of the tax assessment.
On the second point, an error in naming the requesting office is immaterial if the origin of the notice can be inferred from the other details, here the reference to the Revenue Agency and the identification number of the notice. The allocation of the burden of proof remains unchanged: if the tax office raises the plea that the appeal is out of time, the taxpayer must produce the notice with proof of the date of service; if service is void, the tax authorities must prove when the addressee actually became aware of it.
The case shows how much depends on the starting date. Counting sixty days from 24 May 2013, the date of collection, the time limit under Article 21, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 546/1992 (from 1 January 2027, Article 67, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 175/2024) would have expired on 23 July 2013, and the appeal handed in on 13 July would have been timely. Counting them from the tenth day after the CAD was sent, the time limit expired on Monday 8 July 2013, and the appeal of 13 July was out of time. The summer suspension of procedural time limits, which now runs from 1 to 31 August (Article 1 of Law No. 742/1969), did not fall within the period. The same date governs the application for accertamento con adesione (assessment by agreement with the tax office), which must be filed within the time limit for appeal or, where the notice was preceded by the draft assessment, within fifteen days of service. Filing the application suspends the time limit for appeal for ninety days, reduced to thirty in the second case (Article 6, paragraphs 2, 2-bis and 3, of Legislative Decree No. 218/1997; from 1 January 2027, Article 351, paragraphs 2, 3 and 6, of Legislative Decree No. 141/2026).
In our view the ruling closes off a line of defence that was still being attempted in practice: a challenge to the way the CAD return receipt was filled in, once the notice has been collected, is unlikely to succeed unless the taxpayer alleges and proves specific facts to the contrary. The case of an item that was never collected is different: there, proof that service was completed requires production of the CAD return receipt, as the judgment itself points out, referring to Joint Divisions judgment No. 10012/2021.
From the tenth day after the CAD was sent. Collection changes the date of service only if it takes place within those ten days (Article 8, paragraph 5, of Law No. 890/1982).
If the item was collected, according to judgment No. 27642/2026 the defect is cured because service achieved its purpose, unless the taxpayer proves otherwise.
No, if the origin of the notice can still be inferred from the other details given, such as the reference to the Revenue Agency and the identification number of the notice.
Court of Cassation, Fifth Civil Division, judgment No. 27642 of 23 October 2026, Presiding Judge Giudicepietro, Reporting Judge Fracanzani, ECLI:IT:CASS:2026:27642CIV (Italgiure SentenzeWeb)
Law No. 890 of 20 November 1982, Article 8, paragraphs 4 and 5 (Normattiva, text in force)
Legislative Decree No. 546 of 31 December 1992, Article 21, paragraph 1 (Normattiva, text in force until 31 December 2026); from 1 January 2027 Legislative Decree No. 175 of 14 November 2024, Article 67
Code of Civil Procedure, Article 156, paragraph 3 (Normattiva, text in force)
Legislative Decree No. 218 of 19 June 1997, Article 6, paragraphs 2, 2-bis, 2-quater and 3 (Normattiva, text in force until 31 December 2026); from 1 January 2027 Legislative Decree No. 141 of 5 August 2026, Article 351
Law No. 742 of 7 October 1969, Article 1 (Normattiva, text in force)
However, the rule applies only where the item was actually collected: it does not assist the tax authorities if the notice was never collected and there is no proof that the CAD was received.