Enrico De Mita

The article analyzes in a critical prospective Italian Constitutional Court jurisprudence on tax law within the last fifth years. A particular attention is given to the serious problems of policy influence in this matter. The article also analyzes new laws’ violations to the Italian Constitution, with special regard to the several remissions of tax liability: the Court has always saved them, with the justification that the remission of tax liability is pre-ordered to acquire more income to the State and to avoid actions. The Auctor hopes a new jurisprudence of the Court specifying and confirming the principle of equal treatment in tax law.

The job analyzes in a critical prospective what the Government is making in fiscal policy. A particular attention is given to the serious problems of constitutionality that there are. The Government wants to make the fight to the tax evasion, but the instruments are wrong. There is a mistaken use of the penal endorsement: it should bu used to punish, not to have more money. The job analyzes also the several violations to the «Statuto del contribuente» that the new laws make. The Auctor hopes a new jurisprudence of the Court in order to specify the constitutional limits of the «Statuto del contribuente».

The job analyzes in a critical prospective the remission of tax liability, with a particular attention to the serious problems of constitutionality that it gives. Until to the 1971 all the remissions emanated regarded only the sanctions. It was from the Tax System Reform of 1971 that the remission regarded the taxes for the generality of the contributors, like transitory regimen in order to pass from a system to an other. And this justification has been adduced improperly also for the last ones remissions. This institute has a political and economic genesis, as said the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that always has saved it: the remission of tax liability is preordered to acquire to the State more income and to avoid actions. The Auctor hopes a new jurisprudence of the Court in order to specify the constitutional limits of the remission, that is a defect of the democracy.