ITALY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Maurizio Marullo, Giorgio Vagnoni and Francesco Amoresano, LAWP Studio legale e tributario
The “Chiellini Case” (Supreme Court Order No 28779/2025) A significant shift emerged with Supreme Court Order No 28779/2025, issued in the case concerning for - mer footballer Giorgio Chiellini. The case involved an image rights company that was 95% owned by the player and 5% by this brother. The tax revenue agency challenged the structure, arguing that it lacked substantive organisation and that image rights had been transferred without con - sideration, thus constituting an abusive arrangement. While acknowledging elements that in previous years might have justified requalification, the Supreme Court rejected the tax authority’s appeal. The decisive factor was the quantification of the tax advantage. An expert report demonstrated that the tax saving resulting from the corporate structure was marginal – approximately 1% compared to direct taxation. On this basis, the Court reaffirmed two fundamental principles: • no automatic abuse – where the mere existence of a tax advantage does not automatically imply abuse, the artificiality of the structure must be proven; and • essential purpose test – that is, abuse arises only where the arrangement lacks economic substance and is primarily aimed at securing an undue and significant tax advantage. Moreover, the Court shifted the burden of proof to the tax authorities, requiring them to demonstrate that tax avoidance constituted the essential purpose of the structure. Implications for the sports industry The Chiellini Order marks a potential turning point in Italian jurisprudence on image rights management. It suggests that: • the use of a corporate vehicle, even if family owned and operationally light, is not abusive; • legitimate tax planning remains permissible; and • reclassification of income requires concrete evi - dence of a predominant and undue tax advantage.
Image Rights Management Through Corporate Vehicles For many years, Italian tax authorities and courts adopted a restrictive approach towards the use of companies for the management of athletes’ image rights. Under this view, income deriving from the com - mercial exploitation of a player’s image – being strictly connected to the athlete’s personal reputation and professional performance – was generally deemed to be directly attributable to the individual and taxable as personal income. Tax authorities frequently chal - lenged corporate structures used to manage image rights based on interposition doctrines. Fictitious and real interposition in Italian tax law Under Article 37, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No 600/1973, income formally attributed to third party may be reallocated to the individual where it is dem - onstrated – even through presumptions – that the individual is the actual beneficial owner. This provi - sion traditionally applied to cases of fictitious interpo - sition, where the interposed entity is merely a sham and lacks genuine autonomy. However, tax disputes in the sports sector increasing - ly concerned real interposition, where the company is legally existent and contracts are genuinely executed, yet the structure is alleged to pursue predominant - ly tax-saving purposes. In such cases, the relevant legal framework shifts to abuse of rights under Article 10-bis of Law No 212/2000, which targets transac - tions lacking economic substance and aimed essen - tially at obtaining undue tax advantages. The Italian revenue agency has often relied on indica - tors such as: • absence of an adequate organisational structure; • lack of autonomous business functions; • unclear corporate purpose; and • family ownership combined with gratuitous trans - fers of image rights. In such circumstances, income was requalified and taxed directly in the hands of the athlete.
160 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook