RIVISTA DI DIRITTO TRIBUTARIO INTERNAZIONALE - Rdti.it

G. Petrillo: Intetpellation in the Statute or Taxpa.vers' Rights
Even considering the reason for the prerequisite necessary to activate
the interpellation request, which is to be found in the need to avoid overburdening
the administration with requests concerning well-established,
known or in any case knowable interpretational solutions, the legislative
solution adopted appears very questionable. The requirement for "objective
conditions of uncertainty" is thus in danger of becoming a major obstade
to the exercise of the right of interpellation, as its captious use by
the Financial Administration could paralyse the system, without even
considering the justifiable perplexities as to the possibility of effective
cognizability of the provision in the implementation regulations (25).
Ali in all, in line with the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence
that confirms the existence of "a constitutional value concerning the clarily
of legislation and certainty in the application of law" (26), "certainty",
taken to mean the possibility, consequent to simplicity, of "being able to
evaluate with some approximation the incidence of taxation in tenns of
costs on an economie activity" (27), is pursued through the foresee ability
of the behaviour of the Financial Administation. Whilst the taxpayer
has the right and not the obligation to express interpellation requests, the
legislator has the obligation elevated to a "generaI principle" of law to
comply with specific requirements in the drawing-up of fiscallaws [such
as the establishment of new conditions and prerequisites with regard to
the admissibility of retroactive laws and authentic interpretation legislation
(28), the foreseeing of extremely detailed provisions with a view to
it may allow the non application of the fiscal penalties, cannot allow, on the contrary',
the proposition of the interpellation".
(25) In the presence of a question already resolved by the Administration, \vith
consequent lack of the prerequisite of objective uncertainty, the regulations make the
Agency responsible for indicating to the taxpayer the particulars of the measure in
which the requested interpretational solution is contained.
(26) See in particular, in this regard: Const. Court No. 384/1994; Cons!. Court No.
94 of 31st March 1995.
(27) Thus in E. De Mita, La legalità tributaria, Milan, 1993, p, 116.
(28) In order to check the proliferation of interpretational (and thereby retroactive)
regulations, paragraph l of Art. 3 of La\\' No. 212/2000, aiming to safeguard the
principle of trust, foresees a generaI prohibition of retroactivity for ta'l(ation provisions,
save for those of authentic interpretation, which are made subject from the substantial
standpoint to the occurrence of "e.'l(ceptional cases"; and from the formai standpoint,
to introduction by means of an "ordinaI}" la\\''' (Art. 1 paragraph 2).
RIVISTA DI DIRITTO TRIBUTARIO INTER.\:AZIONALE 3neXH