02.4004.4318
CALL US!
8:30 - 17:30
Mon-Fri

Archivio: Marzo 26, 2026

Foreign Transparent Trusts and IVAFE: When the Beneficiary Is Not Taxable

Foreign Transparent Trusts and IVAFE: When the Beneficiary Is Not Taxable

Italian Revenue Agency Ruling No. 84/2026 provides important clarification on a nuanced issue in international tax: whether IVAFE (Italy’s tax on foreign financial assets) applies to Italian tax residents who are beneficiaries of foreign trusts.

The ruling is particularly relevant because it addresses a common scenario in practice—where a beneficiary of a “transparent” trust is entitled to receive income but has no control over, or ownership of, the underlying assets.

The case involves a U.S. citizen who became tax resident in Italy and is a beneficiary of an irrevocable U.S. trust. The trust is administered by an independent U.S.-based trustee, and its assets consist entirely of foreign financial investments, including funds, equities, ETFs, and bonds.

What ultimately matters, however, is not the composition of the portfolio but the beneficiary’s legal position. Under the terms of the trust deed, the beneficiary has no right to the trust capital, no management powers, no ability to influence the trustee, and no authority to dispose of the assets. His sole entitlement is to receive the income generated by the trust during his lifetime.

This distinction is crucial. The beneficiary does not hold any ownership interest or real rights over the trust assets. Instead, his position is more accurately described as a contractual or creditor-like right to receive income, rather than a proprietary interest in the underlying investments.

Against this background, the taxpayer sought confirmation that such a position does not fall within the scope of IVAFE, which applies to Italian residents holding foreign financial assets capable of generating taxable income.

In its analysis, the Revenue Agency focused on the core requirement for IVAFE to apply. The tax is triggered only where the taxpayer has a qualifying legal relationship with the assets—namely ownership, a real right, or actual holding (detention) of the financial assets.

In a trust structure, however, legal ownership of the assets rests exclusively with the trustee, who manages them and exercises powers broadly equivalent to those of an owner. The beneficiary, by contrast, has no direct relationship with the assets. He does not own them, cannot manage or dispose of them, and does not bear any investment risk.

This point is decisive. The Revenue Agency emphasizes that the beneficiary does not invest capital and is not exposed to the economic risk associated with the assets. As a result, his position cannot be treated as a financial investment for IVAFE purposes.

On this basis, the conclusion is straightforward: the beneficiary is not subject to IVAFE, as he neither owns nor holds the trust’s financial assets.

This interpretation is consistent with prior guidance concerning opaque trusts. While the ruling does not explicitly frame this as a general principle, it effectively extends the same reasoning to transparent trusts, confirming that the key factor is not how income is taxed, but who legally owns or controls the assets.

It is important to note, however, that the absence of IVAFE does not remove reporting obligations. An Italian-resident beneficiary must still disclose their interest in the trust under Italy’s foreign asset reporting rules (RW form), as it represents a relevant cross-border position.

In conclusion, Ruling No. 84/2026 reinforces a fundamental principle: wealth taxes on foreign financial assets require actual ownership or control. Where a beneficiary has no rights over the trust assets and is merely entitled to income, the basic condition for IVAFE is not met.

This clarification is particularly valuable in practice, as it sharpens the distinction between income taxation and wealth taxation and underscores the importance of carefully assessing the legal structure of a trust and the specific rights granted to its beneficiaries.

Goodbye Bureaucracy: The “EU Inc.” to End Long Wait Times for European Startups

The “EU Inc.” to End Long Wait Times for European Startups

For decades, expanding a business across the European Union meant navigating 27 different legal systems, a mountain of paperwork, and—most frustratingly—unpredictable waiting times. Whether it was the weeks required for a traditional Italian SRL or the complex notarization processes in Germany, the “long wait” has been the primary barrier to innovation.

That is finally changing. With the formal introduction of the EU Inc. (the Unified European Company) in March 2026, the European Commission has launched a direct strike against administrative delays.

The 48-Hour Revolution

The most significant breakthrough of the EU Inc. is the “48-hour rule.” Under this new regulation, entrepreneurs can incorporate a company online across the entire Union in less than two days. This replaces a process that previously took weeks or even months in certain member states.

How the “Long Times” are Being Cut:

  • Digital-First Identity: By using the eIDAS (European Digital Identity) framework, founders no longer need to appear physically before a notary or government official. Verification is instantaneous and cross-border.
  • The “28th Regime”: The EU Inc. functions as a simplified legal template that exists alongside national laws (like the SRL or GmbH). Because it is governed by a single EU Regulation, there is no need to wait for local courts to interpret national variations.
  • Low-Cost Entry: To further accelerate the process, incorporation fees have been capped at €100, removing the financial friction that often slowed down the initial filing phases.

Why This Matters Now

The fragmentation of 60 different company types across the EU was costing the economy billions in lost time. The EU Inc. provides a standardized “passport for businesses. Once registered, a company can operate in any member state without the need to “re-learn” local corporate law or wait for secondary approvals.

Current Status

As of March 2026, the legislative proposal is moving through the European Parliament. While national SRLs will remain an option for local businesses, the EU Inc. is positioned to become the default choice for any founder who values speed and scalability over traditional, slow-moving structures.

The Roadmap: When will “EU Inc.” arrive in Italy?

While the proposal was officially introduced in March 2026, the transition from a Brussels regulation to a functional “Italian” option involves a specific legislative cycle. Based on the standard EU “Ordinary Legislative Procedure,” here is the estimated timeline for implementation:

PhaseEstimated TimingDescription
1. EU ApprovalMid 2026 – Late 2026The European Parliament and the Council of the EU must reach a final agreement on the text of the Regulation.
2. Technical SetupEarly 2027Development of the unified digital portal and integration with national Business Registers (like the Italian Registro delle Imprese).
3. Italian AdaptationMid 2027Italy must align its internal procedures (and the role of notaries) to support the eIDAS digital identity verification for the new EU Inc.
4. Full LaunchLate 2027 / Early 2028The first EU Inc. entities are expected to be legally incorporable in Italy within the target 48-hour window.

Key Steps for the Italian Implementation:

  1. Digital Onboarding: Italy will need to fully activate the interoperability between its national digital IDs (SPID/CIE) and the European Digital Identity Wallet to allow “one-click” incorporation.
  2. Notarial Transition: A major shift will involve moving from traditional physical deeds to digital-native protocols. The Italian Notariat is already working on remote video-conferencing systems to comply with these faster EU standards.
  3. Automatic Tax ID: To meet the 48-hour goal, the Italian Revenue Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate) will need to automate the issuance of VAT numbers (Partita IVA) for EU Inc. companies, bypassing current manual checks that often cause the “long wait” times today.

Assignment of Assets to Shareholders in Italy (2026): Framework, Benefits and Key Considerations

Assignment of Assets to Shareholders in Italy (2026): Framework, Benefits and Key Considerations

In recent years, Italian tax legislation has periodically reintroduced a favorable regime allowing companies to assign certain assets directly to their shareholders under reduced taxation.

The 2026 Budget Law confirms this approach once again, offering a limited-time opportunity for companies to reorganize their asset structure in a more efficient manner from both a tax and corporate perspective.

Nature of the transaction

The assignment of assets to shareholders consists in the transfer of company-owned assets—most commonly real estate—to shareholders in lieu of cash distributions.

From an accounting standpoint, the transaction results in a reduction of the company’s net equity, while shareholders receive value in kind rather than in monetary form.

This mechanism is particularly relevant where companies hold assets that are no longer instrumental to their business activity, such as non-operational real estate or investments retained for purely patrimonial purposes.

Legislative rationale

The reintroduction of this regime reflects a clear policy objective.

Over time, a significant number of companies have accumulated assets that are not directly connected to their core business. The legislator aims to facilitate:

the simplification of corporate structures

the separation between operating activities and passive assets

the reduction of entities holding assets without a genuine business function

In this context, the regime represents a tool to promote greater transparency and efficiency in corporate asset management.

Tax treatment

The principal advantage of the regime lies in its tax treatment.

Under ordinary rules, the assignment of assets would generally trigger taxation on capital gains at standard corporate rates, in addition to indirect taxes.

The favorable regime replaces this with a substitute tax, typically applied as follows:

8% in ordinary cases

10.5% for non-operating companies

The taxable base is determined by the difference between the tax value of the asset and its transfer value.

For real estate, companies may opt to use the cadastral value, which is often lower than market value, thereby reducing the taxable base and overall tax burden.

Indirect tax benefits

In addition to the substitute tax, the regime provides for reduced indirect taxation.

Registration tax is generally applied at a reduced rate, while cadastral and mortgage taxes are often due in fixed amounts.

These reductions contribute significantly to the overall efficiency of the transaction when compared to ordinary disposal mechanisms.

Conditions and requirements

Access to the regime is subject to specific conditions.

In particular:

shareholders must already qualify as such by 30 September 2025

the transaction must be duly approved and formalized, including, where applicable, notarial deeds

careful consideration must be given to the tax implications at shareholder level

As a result, the operation requires proper planning and coordination across legal, accounting and tax profiles.

Deadlines

The regime is strictly time-limited, and compliance with deadlines is essential.

30 September 2026: deadline to complete the assignment and to pay 60% of the substitute tax

30 November 2026: deadline for payment of the remaining 40%

Failure to meet these deadlines results in the loss of the favorable regime and the application of ordinary taxation.

Practical relevance

In practice, the assignment of assets to shareholders may be particularly appropriate in situations such as:

the presence of non-operational real estate within corporate structures

the need to separate business activities from patrimonial assets

corporate reorganizations or preparation for liquidation

extraction of value by shareholders in a tax-efficient manner

It therefore represents not merely a tax measure, but a broader instrument of corporate and financial planning.

Italy – Shareholder Loans and Intra-Group Financing: Subordination under Article 2467 Civil Code

Italy – Shareholder Loans and Intra-Group Financing: Subordination under Article 2467 Civil Code

Shareholder loans are widely used to finance Italian companies, particularly within closely held businesses and multinational corporate groups. Italian law, however, provides a specific safeguard for creditors: in certain circumstances, shareholder loans may be subordinated to the claims of other creditors.

Recent case law from the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) has clarified the scope of this rule and confirmed that it may also apply to intra-group financing structures.

The Legal Framework

The relevant provision is Article 2467 of the Italian Civil Code, which governs shareholder loans in limited liability companies (S.r.l.).

Under this rule, the repayment of shareholder loans is subordinated to the satisfaction of other creditors where the financing was granted:

  • in the presence of an excessive imbalance between debt and equity, or
  • in a financial situation in which a capital contribution would have been reasonable instead of debt financing.

The rationale behind the rule is to prevent shareholders from supporting an undercapitalized or financially distressed company through loans rather than equity, thereby shifting the business risk onto external creditors.

Supreme Court Guidance

In Cass. civ., Sez. I, 8 July 2025, no. 18599, the Italian Supreme Court provided important clarification regarding the application of the subordination principle in the context of corporate groups.

The Court confirmed that the rule contained in Article 2467, read together with Article 2497-quinquies of the Civil Code, may apply not only to loans granted directly by shareholders but also to financing arrangements within a corporate group where a company exercises direction and coordination over another entity.

In particular, the Court emphasized that subordination may apply even where the financing is structured through intermediate group entities. In such cases, courts must look beyond the formal structure of the transaction and assess its economic substance, including the role of the controlling company and the financial condition of the subsidiary.

If the financing effectively replaces a capital contribution that should have been made to support the company, the resulting claim may be treated as subordinated.

Practical Implications for Corporate Groups

The decision highlights the need for careful planning of intra-group financing arrangements involving Italian companies.

Parent companies financing subsidiaries in financial difficulty should consider that:

  • intra-group loans may be recharacterized as subordinated claims;
  • courts will focus on the economic substance of the financing rather than its formal structure;
  • channeling financing through intermediate entities will not necessarily prevent the application of the subordination rule.

Where a subsidiary requires financial support in a distressed situation, equity injections may in some cases be more appropriate than shareholder loans.

Conclusion

The recent Supreme Court ruling confirms that Italian courts take a substance-over-form approach when assessing shareholder and intra-group financing.

For corporate groups operating in Italy, the decision serves as a reminder that shareholder loans granted in situations of financial imbalance may be subordinated to external creditors, particularly where the financing effectively replaces equity support.

Careful structuring of shareholder and intra-group funding remains essential to avoid unexpected limitations on repayment.

The Italian 7% Retiree Tax Regime: A Strategic Opportunity — Including for U.S. Citizens

The Italian 7% Retiree Tax Regime: A Strategic Opportunity — Including for U.S. Citizen

PDF memo here

Italy offers a highly attractive tax incentive for foreign retirees who choose to relocate to certain areas of Southern Italy. The regime, introduced by Article 24-ter of the Italian Income Tax Code, allows qualifying individuals to benefit from a 7% flat substitute tax on their foreign-source income for up to ten tax years — the year of transfer plus the following nine.

The measure was designed to attract pensioners willing to establish their tax residence in smaller municipalities located in specific Southern regions. It combines a low and predictable tax burden with simplified compliance obligations, making it one of the most competitive retiree regimes currently available within the European Union.

Under this regime, individuals who receive a foreign pension and who have not been tax resident in Italy for at least five previous tax years may opt for a substitute tax equal to 7% on all foreign-source income. This includes not only pension income, but also foreign dividends, interest, capital gains and rental income. The substitute tax replaces ordinary progressive income taxation, which in Italy can exceed 40%, as well as regional and municipal surtaxes.

Italian-source income remains subject to ordinary taxation and is not covered by the 7% regime.

A decisive element of the regime is geographic location. The taxpayer must transfer tax residence to a municipality with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants located in one of the eligible Southern regions, such as Sicily, Calabria, Sardinia, Campania, Basilicata, Abruzzo, Molise or Puglia. If this territorial requirement is not met, the regime cannot be applied. The policy objective is clearly linked to encouraging demographic and economic revitalization in smaller Southern communities.Under Law No. 34 of March 11, 2026 (Article 26), the population threshold for eligible municipalities has been increased:

  • From 20,000 inhabitants ( previous ) → to 30,000 inhabitants (now)

This seemingly technical adjustment has a substantial practical impact:

  • Around eighty additional municipalities became eligible, bringing the total to more than 2,400. No official list is published, so each address should be checked against the relevant year’s population figures
  • Broader geographic coverage across Southern Italy
  • Access to more developed towns with better infrastructure

Regions benefiting from the expansion include Campania, Sicily, Puglia, Sardinia, Abruzzo, Calabria and Molise.

Notably, newly eligible municipalities include internationally recognised locations such as:

  • Pompei
  • Noto
  • Ostuni
  • Milazzo

This marks a clear shift: the regime is no longer limited to small, often remote towns, but now includes fully functional urban centres.

An additional advantage of the regime concerns compliance obligations. During the period of application, foreign assets are exempt from Italian wealth taxes (IVIE on foreign real estate and IVAFE on foreign financial assets), and the taxpayer is exempt from the foreign asset reporting obligation normally required under Italian monitoring rules. This considerably simplifies annual tax compliance for retirees with diversified international holdings.

The regime can apply for up to ten consecutive years. It may be revoked by the taxpayer and automatically ceases if the eligibility conditions are no longer satisfied. Once terminated, it cannot be reactivated.

From a planning perspective, the regime can produce substantial tax savings. A retiree receiving significant foreign pension and investment income may reduce the effective Italian tax burden to a small fraction of what would otherwise apply under the ordinary progressive system. However, careful analysis remains essential. Double tax treaty interaction, foreign withholding taxes, and the timing of relocation during the tax year should all be evaluated before moving.

Special Considerations for U.S. Citizens

For U.S. citizens, the analysis becomes more complex because the United States taxes its citizens on worldwide income regardless of residence. A U.S. retiree relocating to Southern Italy under the 7% regime will still be required to file annual U.S. federal tax returns and report worldwide income.

The 7% Italian substitute tax does not eliminate U.S. taxation. Instead, coordination depends on the foreign tax credit (FTC) mechanism and the Italy–U.S. tax treaty.

In principle, the Italian 7% substitute tax qualifies as an income tax and may be creditable for U.S. purposes. However, the credit is subject to U.S. limitation rules. The foreign tax credit cannot exceed the portion of U.S. tax attributable to the same category of income. If the U.S. effective rate on that pension income exceeds 7%, a residual U.S. tax liability may remain.

In addition, differences in taxable base calculations between the two systems can affect the amount of usable credit. Each case requires modeling based on the nature of the pension (private pension versus U.S. Social Security), overall income levels, and treaty allocation rules.

A common misconception deserves correction here. Under the Italy–U.S. tax treaty, private pensions are taxable only in the State of residence, and the Protocol expressly confirms that social security payments not covered by Article 19 fall under the same rule. An Italian resident receiving U.S. Social Security is therefore taxable on it in Italy — which means it can fall within the 7% regime, not outside it. This is the opposite of the position often assumed, and it is one of the features that makes the regime attractive for retirees arriving from the United States.

Two qualifications apply. First, the saving clause means U.S. citizens remain taxable in the United States on their worldwide income regardless of treaty allocation, so the practical outcome depends on the foreign tax credit rather than on the allocation alone. Second, Article 19 governs pensions arising from government service, which stay taxable in the paying State unless the recipient is both a resident and a national of the other State — so federal, state, military and other public-service pensions follow a different rule from Social Security and must be classified individually.

For U.S. retirees, therefore, the real question is not whether Italy taxes at 7%, but what the combined Italy–U.S. effective burden will be after applying treaty provisions and foreign tax credit limitations.

Final Considerations

The 7% Retiree Regime represents a powerful and predictable tax incentive for foreign pensioners willing to relocate to eligible Southern municipalities. For many non-U.S. retirees, it can significantly reduce overall taxation while simplifying compliance.

For U.S. citizens, the regime can still be attractive, but it requires coordinated cross-border planning. The headline 7% rate is only one part of the analysis. A proper evaluation must consider treaty interaction, U.S. foreign tax credit mechanics, and the overall combined tax position.

As with any international relocation, detailed planning is essential before making the move.

New Italian Inbound Workers Regime: Employer of Record Continuity and Extended Foreign Residence Requirement

New Italian Inbound Workers Regime: Employer of Record Continuity and Extended Foreign Residence Requirement

Italian Revenue Agency – Ruling No. 54/2026

The Italian Revenue Agency examined the application of the new inbound workers tax regime (Article 5, Legislative Decree No. 209/2023) in a case involving:

An Italian citizen resident in Switzerland for three tax years;

Employment abroad through a Swiss Employer of Record (EoR);

Relocation to Italy in 2025;

New employment in Italy for a different foreign operating company;

Formal employment contract signed with an Italian Employer of Record belonging to the same corporate group as the Swiss EoR.

The operating companies benefiting from the employee’s services were not related to each other.

The taxpayer argued that the ordinary three-year foreign residence requirement should apply, since the EoR performed only administrative/payroll functions and had no managerial authority.

Legal Framework

Under Article 5 of Legislative Decree No. 209/2023, the new inbound workers regime provides:

A 50% exemption on Italian-source employment income (up to EUR 600,000 annually);

A minimum foreign residence requirement of three tax years;

An extended requirement of six or seven tax years if, upon return, the employee works:

for the same employer, or

for a company belonging to the same corporate group (as defined under Article 2359 of the Italian Civil Code).

Position of the Revenue Agency

The Revenue Agency clarified that:

Continuity is assessed based on whether the employer (or group) before and after the relocation is the same;

This principle also applies when the formal employer is an Employer of Record;

It is irrelevant that the EoR performs only administrative functions;

It is irrelevant that the operating companies benefiting from the services are different and unrelated.

Since the Swiss and Italian Employers of Record belonged to the same corporate group, the Agency considered that continuity existed.

Conclusion

The ordinary three-year foreign residence requirement does not apply.

The taxpayer must satisfy the extended six-year foreign residence requirement to qualify for the new inbound workers regime.

Practical Implications

The ruling confirms a formal and structural interpretation of “group continuity,” focusing on corporate control relationships rather than on the substantive nature of the employment relationship.

This interpretation is particularly relevant for:

International mobility structures involving Employers of Record;

Multinational groups using payroll intermediaries;

Cross-border employment planning under the new Italian inbound workers regime.