JUDGMENT NO. 89

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 31 October 1990 (Approval of the Consolidated Text of the provisions concerning inheritance and gift tax), initiated by the Court of Cassation, Tax Division, in the proceedings between the Revenue Agency and S.C., by referral order dated 11 June 2025, registered as no. 210 in the register of orders for 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 45, First Special Series, of the year 2025.

Having heard in chambers on 23 March 2026 the Reporting Judge Luca Antonini;

decided in chambers on 23 March 2026.

Legal Reasoning (Facts)

1.– By referral order dated 11 June 2025, registered as no. 210 in the register of orders for 2025, the Court of Cassation, Tax Division, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 31 October 1990 (Approval of the Consolidated Text of the provisions concerning inheritance and gift tax), in its version applicable ratione temporis, with reference to Articles 3(1) and 53(1) of the Constitution, "in the part in which it refers to the schedule annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 26 April 1986 [Approval of the Consolidated Text of the provisions concerning registration tax] to which Article 3(164) [of] Law no. 662 of 23 December 1996 [Rationalization measures for public finance] also refers.”

The referring court states that the subject matter of the dispute concerns an appeal against a notice of assessment for inheritance tax, in a succession opened on 22 July 2016, which demanded the payment of €199,715.81 from the beneficiary of a testamentary annuity legacy of €18,000.00 per annum and, jointly, from the burdened heir. The tax amount was determined by applying the calculation criteria provided by Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, thereby taking into account the coefficients established for the year 2016 by the Decree of the Minister of Economy and Finance of 21 December 2015 (Adjustment of the calculation methods for life usufruct rights and annuities or pensions regarding registration and inheritance and gift tax), annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986.

The referring judge reports that both the heir and the legatee challenged the tax notice, claiming that the calculation of the taxable base was erroneous and that the Provincial Tax Commission of Genoa had rejected the appeal. Upon appeal, the Regional Tax Commission of Liguria partially reformed the first-instance judgment. In particular, the second-instance judge held that the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015 should be disapplied as it produced a "distorting and exorbitant effect”; therefore, the court redetermined the tax value by applying the coefficient provided by the Decree of the Minister of Economy and Finance of 23 December 2013, as it "led to the determination of fairer values.” The Revenue Agency lodged an appeal against this decision.

2.‒ In examining the grounds of the appeal, the referring court believes, firstly, that the appellate judge erroneously disapplied the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015, since Article 7(5) of Legislative Decree no. 546 of 31 December 1992 (Provisions on tax proceedings implementing the Government delegation contained in Article 30 of Law no. 413 of 30 December 1991) allows the tax judge to disapply an administrative act only if it is affected by incompetence, violation of law, or abuse of power, whereas the potential distorting effect identified by the appellate judge would not be "sufficient to reach the (incidental) declaration of illegitimacy” of said Ministerial Decree. Moreover, the referring court observes that the challenged provision, by referring to the schedule annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, performed a "receptive” referral (rinvio ricettizio) for the identification of the coefficient to be applied for the purpose of calculating the taxable base of inheritance tax relating to the life annuity, as such a schedule was incorporated and crystallized "within the referring norm, becoming an integral part thereof,” so that the provisions of the Ministerial Decree, once approved, "must be applied as an integral part of the relevant regulatory framework.”

Secondly, the referring court addresses the legislation governing the determination of the taxable base for inheritance tax relating to life annuities, citing Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, applicable ratione temporis, according to which it is necessary to take into account the "value obtained by multiplying the annual amount by the applicable coefficient, according to the schedule annexed to the Consolidated Text on registration tax, approved by Presidential Decree no. 131 of 26 April 1986, in relation to the age of the person upon whose death it must cease, if it concerns a life annuity or pension.”

The referring court highlights that this schedule is modified by ministerial decrees due to variations in the legal interest rate, pursuant to Article 3(164) of Law no. 662 of 1996, which states: "[t]he schedule of coefficients annexed to [Presidential Decree] no. 131 of 1986, and subsequent amendments, is replaced by the schedule referred to in table 3 annexed to this Law. [...] The value of the annuity multiplier indicated in Article 46(2)(a) and (b) of the cited [Presidential Decree] no. 131 of 1986, and subsequent amendments, as well as the schedule of coefficients annexed thereto, are varied, due to the modification of the legal interest rate, by decree of the Minister of Finance in concert with the Minister of the Treasury, to be published in the Official Gazette no later than 31 December of the year in which said modification occurred. The variations referred to in the previous period are effective also for the purpose of determining the taxable base regarding annuities and pensions, for successions opened and gifts made starting from 1 January of the year following that in which the variation decree is published.”

2.1.‒ The referring court highlights its inability to apply the new discipline under Article 1(1)(r)(4) of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 18 September 2024 (Provisions for the rationalization of registration tax, inheritance and gift tax, stamp duty, and other indirect taxes other than VAT).

In this regard, it specifies that with this provision the legislature acted upon the rules contained in Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, adding, after paragraph 1, the following paragraphs: "1-bis. The schedule of coefficients annexed to this Consolidated Text and the value of the annuity multiplier indicated in paragraph 1(a) are varied due to the modification of the legal interest rate, by decree of the Minister of Economy and Finance, to be published in the Official Gazette no later than 31 December of the year in which said modification occurred. The variations referred to in the first period are effective for successions opened and gifts made starting from 1 January of the year following that in which the variation decree is published. 1-ter. For the purposes of determining the values referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1-bis, a legal interest rate lower than 2.5 percent cannot be assumed.”

It further notes that a similar intervention was made by Article 2(1)(r)(2) of the same Legislative Decree no. 139 of 2024 for the purpose of determining the registration tax related to life annuities, and that in those cases too, the application of a minimum legal interest rate of 2.5 percent was provided for.

Having clarified this, the referring court observes that the modifying intervention entered into force on 3 October 2024 ‒ pursuant to the provision in Article 11(1) of the cited legislative decree, and with effect from 1 January 2025, according to Article 9(3) ‒ and that the legislature also introduced transitional provisions.

In particular, Article 9(4) provided that, for the purpose of determining the taxable base related to life annuities referred to in Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, established prior to the entry into force of the modifying intervention or whose successions were opened prior to that date, "regarding which the relevant relationships are not closed at the date of entry into force of this decree, where the legal interest rate is equal to or lower than 0.1 percent, the coefficients resulting from the schedule annexed to the Decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance of 21 December 2015, published in the Official Gazette no. 302 of 30 December 2015, are to be assumed.”

It therefore believes that the transitional provision would not be applicable to the present case, given that the interest rate relative to the year of the opening of the succession, i.e., 2016, was equal to 0.2 percent, as identified by the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015, and that, consequently, Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990 should apply in the wording in force ratione temporis, which, for the purpose of determining the taxable base for inheritance tax relating to life annuities, in turn refers to the schedule annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, to which Article 3(164) of Law no. 662 of 1996 also refers.

3.‒ According to the referring court, this comprehensive set of rules, not modified by subsequent legislation, would violate Articles 3(1) and 53(1) of the Constitution, as it contradicts the principles of reasonableness, contributory capacity, and equality.

4.‒ For the purposes of relevance, the Court of Cassation highlights that "the potential declaration of constitutional illegitimacy of the aforementioned provision would affect the calculation of the taxable base of inheritance tax for relationships not yet concluded.”

5.‒ As to the merits, the referring court premises that, according to the challenged legislation, the discounted value of the life annuity is the result of multiplying the amount of the annual annuity by the coefficient established by law, and should take into account two elements, namely, both the life expectancy of the life annuity beneficiary and the measure of the interest rate.

It therefore highlights that if, on the one hand, the reference to life expectancy is functional for the assessment of the number of years the beneficiary will likely have the right to receive, the second element, i.e., the variation of the interest rate, "oscillates every year, thus causing, when there is a significant decrease in the interest rate, a taxable base that results to be disproportionate to the average life, so much so that it leads to incongruous results, as happened in the present case.”

In this regard, it observes that, although the valuation of a life annuity can only be carried out in a prospective and abstract manner, as it is not possible to know in advance exactly how many years it will be paid, it should however be considered that "such a projective evaluation must necessarily be reasonable and correlated to the tax presumption and to the normal rules that govern the formation of the taxable base ‒ considering the average age differentiated for men and women, which obviously cannot reach 227 years ‒ imposing the respect, under Article 53 of the Constitution, of a proportional correspondence between the amount of tax and the real value of the taxable base.”

5.1.‒ The referring court therefore believes that the legislature failed to consider that the criterion established by the challenged provision could generate an exorbitant and disproportionate taxable base, not compliant with the principle of reasonableness, in violation of Article 3(1) of the Constitution.

In this regard, it highlights that the application of this criterion to the present case would entail that, in the face of an annual life annuity equal to €18,000.00, the taxable base upon which to apply the eight percent rate for the purpose of determining inheritance tax is equal to €2,700,000.00, as, considering the beneficiary’s age of 77 and the date of the opening of the succession (2016), the applicable coefficient for 2016 was fixed by the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015 at 150: this amount would therefore be exorbitant and devoid of reasonableness, as it would yield a taxable base not corresponding to a real economic value, since it "would require a survival of 150 years of a 77-year-old woman.”

5.2.‒ Furthermore, it believes that this calculation system would conflict with the principle of contributory capacity under Article 53(1) of the Constitution, since the prerequisite for inheritance tax should be "represented by the enrichment of the beneficiary,” whereas, in the case under consideration, the taxation would not concern a real economic manifestation, because it would not be related to a actually existing economic strength and would instead entail "practically confiscatory effects,” since the amount of taxation is not correlated to the effective value of the taxable base.

5.3.‒ Finally, according to the referring judge, the challenged provision would conflict with Article 3(1) of the Constitution due to unequal treatment, as it established, for the calculation of the taxable base of inheritance tax relating to the life annuity, a discipline analogous to that applied for the determination of the taxable base of inheritance tax relating to life usufruct, although these are "two completely different situations.”

Indeed, the referring court argues that in the case of life usufruct, "the taxable value is reached starting from the value of the capital (i.e., the value of the asset on which the usufruct is imprinted)”; in the case of a life annuity, the taxable value "is reached by moving from the value of the periodically due annuity and performing its capitalization through discounting.”

It observes in particular that the calculation coefficients, while reasonable where it comes to calculating the value of life usufruct, would be "incongruous and arbitrary” when it comes to quantifying the taxable base of the life annuity, "generating significant disparities in relation to the amount of tax due.”

Legal Reasoning (Law)

6.‒ By referral order of 11 June 2025 (registered as reg. ord. no. 210 of 2025), the Court of Cassation, Tax Division, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, in its version applicable ratione temporis, with reference to Articles 3(1) and 53(1) of the Constitution, regarding the rules for calculating the inheritance tax base for life annuities, "in the part in which it refers to the schedule annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 26 April 1986 to which Article 3(164) of Law no. 662 of 23 December 1996 also refers.”

6.1.‒ For the purposes of relevance, the Court of Cassation highlights that "the potential declaration of constitutional illegitimacy of the aforementioned provision would affect the calculation of the inheritance tax base for relationships not yet concluded.”

In this regard, the referring court specifies that, in the present case, the amendments made to Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990 by Article 1(1)(r)(4) of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 2024 cannot be applied.

This is because the new law entered into force on 3 October 2024 ‒ pursuant to Article 11(1) of the cited legislative decree, and with effect from 1 January 2025, according to Article 9(3) ‒ and, in regulating the transitional provisions, Article 9(4) provided that, regarding annuities established prior to the date of entry into force, as well as for successions opened prior to that date, "regarding which the relative relationships are not closed at the date of entry into force of this decree, where the legal interest rate is equal to or lower than 0.1 percent, the coefficients resulting from the schedule annexed to the Decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance of 21 December 2015, published in the Official Gazette no. 302 of 30 December 2015, are to be assumed.”

Therefore, observes the referring court, given that the interest rate relative to the year of the opening of the succession, i.e., 2016, was 0.2 percent, as identified by the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015, the present case would be regulated by Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, in the formulation in force ratione temporis.

6.2.‒ Having clarified this, the referring judge highlights that Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, in its formulation in force ratione temporis, establishes that the determination of the taxable base for inheritance tax relating to life annuities must be carried out by multiplying the annual amount, i.e., the annual life annuity, by the coefficient reported in the schedule annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, to which Article 3(164) of Law no. 662 of 1996 in turn refers.

7.‒ According to the referring court, this comprehensive set of rules would violate Articles 3(1) and 53(1) of the Constitution, as it conflicts with the principles of reasonableness, contributory capacity, and equality.

7.1.‒ Regarding the violation of Article 3(1) of the Constitution due to lack of reasonableness, it highlights that the legislature failed to consider that multiplying the annual life annuity by the coefficient fixed from time to time by ministerial decrees could generate an exorbitant and disproportionate taxable base.

This effect is observable in the case under examination, in which the application of the challenged provision resulted in the fact that, in the face of an annual life annuity equal to €18,000, the taxable base upon which the eight percent rate for the determination of inheritance tax is to be applied is equal to €2,700,000, as, considering the age of the beneficiary (77 years) and the date of the opening of the succession (2016), the coefficient applicable for the year 2016 was fixed by the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015 at 150.

7.2.‒ For the referring court, furthermore, Article 53(1) of the Constitution would also be violated, because there would be no proportional correspondence between the amount of the tax and the real value of the taxable base, leading instead to "practically confiscatory effects.”

7.3.‒ Finally, the referring judge believes that the challenged provision would conflict with Article 3(1) of the Constitution also due to unequal treatment, as it established, for the calculation of the taxable base for inheritance tax relating to the life annuity, a discipline analogous to that applied for the determination of the taxable base of inheritance tax relating to life usufruct, although these are "two completely different situations.”

8.‒ The questions are well-founded due to the violation of the principles of reasonableness and contributory capacity referred to in Articles 3(1) and 53(1) of the Constitution, with the absorption of the further question on the unequal treatment.

The life annuity is governed by Articles 1872 to 1881 of the Civil Code; in particular, Article 1872 of the Civil Code identifies the methods of its creation, providing that "it may be created for consideration, through the alienation of a movable or immovable asset or through the assignment of capital. The life annuity may also be created by donation or by will, and in this case, the rules established by law for such acts are observed.”

For tax purposes, in the event that the life annuity is created by will, Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, applicable ratione temporis, determines the taxable base of the inheritance tax by assuming "the value obtained by multiplying the annual amount by the coefficient applicable, according to the schedule annexed to the Consolidated Text on registration tax, approved by Presidential Decree no. 131 of 26 April 1986.”

By virtue of Article 2(48)(c) of Law Decree no. 262 of 3 October 2006 (Urgent provisions in tax and financial matters), converted with amendments into Law no. 286 of 24 November 2006, applicable ratione temporis, the inheritance tax is determined by applying different rates to the aforementioned taxable base in consideration of the relationships between the beneficiary and the deceased. In particular, as far as relevant, when the devolution does not occur in favor of the spouse and relatives in the direct line or siblings or, again, other relatives up to the fourth degree and relatives by affinity in the direct line, as well as relatives by affinity in the collateral line up to the third degree, the application of the eight percent rate is provided.

It should be specified that Article 14(1)(c) of the same Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990 also refers to the aforementioned schedule, establishing in the text applicable ratione temporis that for the coefficient provided therein, the annual amount of the usufruct is multiplied, also for the purpose of determining the taxable base, calculated however by assuming "the value determined according to Article 17 based on annual amounts equal to the amount obtained by multiplying the value of full ownership by the legal interest rate.”

The same scheme was, moreover, also provided identically for the determination of the taxable base of registration tax, by virtue of Articles 46 and 48 of Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986.

In essence, therefore, the legislature chose to use the same schedule of coefficients—the calculation method of which no norm, however, fully clarified—for the determination of the inheritance tax base relating to both the life annuity and the life usufruct, despite the fact that they are two different institutions, since one involves a contract from which a credit right refers to periodic payments (the first case), and the other involves a contract that constitutes a real right (the second case).

Apart from the reference, contained in Article 17(1)(c) of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, to the need to take into account the "age of the person upon whose death it must cease,” the legislature in fact limited itself to providing that the calculation coefficients must be modified by annual ministerial decrees based on the legal interest rate, according to Article 3(164) of Law no. 662 of 1996, which states that the coefficients "are varied, due to the modification of the measure of the legal interest rate, by decree of the Minister of Finance in concert with the Minister of the Treasury, to be published in the Official Gazette no later than 31 December of the year in which said modification occurred. The variations referred to in the previous period are effective also, for the purpose of determining the taxable base regarding annuities and pensions, for successions opened and gifts made starting from 1 January of the year following that in which the variation decree is published.”

In the historical sequence of the schedules attached from time to time to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, to which the challenged provision refers, the coefficient, which has always been divided by age classes, has resulted inversely proportional to the interest rate, because, from an actuarial-mathematical point of view, if the discount rate increases, the present value decreases.

One can recall, as an example, that for a person seventy-seven years of age, the Decree of the Minister of Economy and Finance of 18 December 2020 (Adjustment of the calculation methods for usufruct rights and annuities or pensions due to the new measure of the interest rate), applicable for the year 2021, had established, in consideration of the interest rate equal to 0.01 percent, that the coefficient was even equal to 3,000; the one for the year 2023 (Decree of the Minister of Economy and Finance of 20 December 2022, regarding "Adjustment of the calculation methods for usufruct rights and annuities or pensions due to the new measure of the legal interest rate”), in consideration of the legal interest rate of five percent, had fixed it at 6.

In these terms, the measure of the tax relating to the life annuity resulted to be enormously penalized by the sequences of decrees with rates below one percent.

This distortion derived from the fact that the ministerial decrees issued from time to time due to the variation of the legal interest rate established the calculation coefficients identically for both the life annuity and the life usufruct.

However, whereas the rule established for the determination of the taxable base of the tax relating to the usufruct requires a multiplication, in order to establish the value of the annual amount, of the value of the bare ownership by the interest rate, an analogous provision is missing for the life annuity.

For the life usufruct, therefore, the multiplication by the interest rate, when it is less than unity, determines a significant decrease in the amount to which the coefficient is applied: for example, in the case of a rate equal to 0.01 percent, a value equal to one hundredth of the bare ownership will be obtained.

In the case of the life annuity, instead, there is no need to determine the annual value of the same, which is already known in re ipsa, so that the multiplication by the coefficient established by the recalled schedule happens directly without the mediation of the multiplication by the interest rate.

The criterion, therefore, did not create critical issues at the moment the rule was introduced, since interest rates were, and were for a long time, above unity, but it entered into crisis at the moment when, historically, a rate below unity was determined, leading to abnormal results.

Emblematic from this point of view is the described event of the main judgment: the legatee, a seventy-seven-year-old lady, would have had to pay immediately, since the inheritance tax is a tax (in a broad sense) of a patrimonial type that applies at the moment of the transfer mortis causa, the sum of €216,000, equal to well twelve years of the annuity; with the paradoxical result that she would have been able to enjoy the annuity, once the tax was paid, only starting from an age exceeding the current average life expectancy.

8.1.– In order to enter into the merits of the questions and to evaluate the grounds of constitutional incompatibility of such a regulatory framework, it is appropriate to premise a brief summary of the evolution of the principle of contributory capacity, which does not constitute a sort of "empty box,” as the early doctrine that had dealt with it feared.

This Court very soon, in fact, had the opportunity to develop the numerous implications of the principle enshrined in Article 53(1) of the Constitution, on the level of the substantive discipline of tax imposition, through multiple declarations of constitutional illegitimacy, which concerned, in particular: the retroactivity of tax laws (Judgment no. 44 of 1966); tax presumptions (Judgment no. 103 of 1967); the institutions of the person responsible for the tax and the tax substitute (Judgment no. 120 of 1972); the necessity of the link between economic prerequisite and imposed performance (Judgment no. 131 of 1973); the internal coherence of the tax (Judgment no. 42 of 1980).

8.2.– Once this phase, which revolved around the concretization—in relation to the various institutions of tax law—of the most substantially guaranteed content of the principle of contributory capacity, was exhausted in principle, this Court relocated the problematic relative to the concretization of Article 53 of the Constitution, declining it prevalently within the dimension of tax equality, especially starting from the prohibition of qualitative discrimination of income, reaching some significant declarations of constitutional illegitimacy (in particular, among these, judgments no. 116 of 2013 and no. 223 of 2012).

Judgment no. 262 of 2020, reconstructing this evolution, has, in fact, specified that it constitutes a "consolidated principle in the jurisprudence of this Court that the control ‘regarding the lesion of the principles referred to in Article 53 of the Constitution, as a specification of the fundamental principle of equality referred to in Article 3 of the Constitution,’ leads to a ‘judgment on the reasonable use, or otherwise, that the legislature itself has made of its discretionary powers in tax matters, in order to verify the internal coherence of the structure of the tax with its economic prerequisite’ (Judgment no. 116 of 2013; but also, *ex plurimis*, judgments no. 10 of 2015, no. 223 of 2012, no. 111 of 1997, as well as, in an analogous sense, already Judgment no. 42 of 1980).”

8.3.– The constitutional jurisprudence has also recognized that the changing of times affects tax phenomena and therefore the interpretation of the principle of contributory capacity.

Indeed, it has specified, also in consideration of the evolution towards the digital economy, that, "in a complex context like the contemporary one, where new and multiform creations of value develop, the concept of contributory capacity does not necessarily have to remain linked only to traditional indices like assets and income, being able to be relevant also for other and more evolved forms of capacity, which well may denote an economic strength or potential” (Judgment no. 288 of 2019).

From this point of view, the constitutional jurisprudence has developed a reading of the principle of contributory capacity that "adapts it, in the perspective of equality and solidarity inherent in the mandatory duty to contribute to public expenses, to the modern evolution of economic dynamics in a context in which wealth can escape the most traditional classifications. In fact, the principle of contributory capacity, understood in this way, has been able to intercept new forms of wealth: it has led, for example, to consider it not ‘implausible that the legislature, in the context of a crisis period and in comparison with the industrial market, has deduced from membership in the financial market’ a specific and autonomous index of contributory capacity, relevant for the purposes of a temporary counter-cyclical tax intervention, given the ‘oligopolistic connotations’ of such a market, from which it follows ‘that the companies operating in it dispose of a significant market power, deriving also from a certain degree (variable in relation to services and sectors) of inelasticity of demand’ (Judgment no. 288 of 2019). In the same sense, in Judgment no. 10 of 2015, it was considered per se not illegitimate that a tax – which then resulted to be constitutionally illegitimate for another profile – could pursue the aim of hitting an index of contributory capacity identified in the ‘exceptional profitability of the economic activity for oil operators’ recorded in a ‘complex economic situation’” (Judgment no. 111 of 2024).

8.3.1.– In this perspective, the social function that tax imposition can play has also been valued, by virtue of its connection to mandatory duties of solidarity: the principle of contributory capacity itself, moreover, is placed by the Constitution in Title IV, therefore within the scope of "Political Relations,” to signify that objectives of economic policy, not only in terms of redistribution of wealth in compliance with the principle of progressivity, can characterize tax levies.

This Court, in fact, in the judgment on the tax on the consumption of sweetened soft drinks, the so-called sugar tax, in rejecting the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised with reference to Articles 3 and 53 of the Constitution, stated that such a tax pursues the "contrast of conducts—of individuals and companies—negatively affecting health,” "through the disincentive of the commercialization and consumption of specific products deemed harmful precisely for health, the excessive use of which can, therefore, also generate an burden of public expenditure, connected to the consequent need to ensure appropriate care through the National Health Service” (Judgment no. 49 of 2024).

The sugar tax, therefore, was justified in its purpose of disincentive in order to reduce and compensate for the expenditure of public health, admitting that the tax system can be selective in the presence of such a justification: the health of people, protected as a "fundamental right” by the Constitution (Article 32), is in fact susceptible to being protected also through the tax, or the solidarity instrument par excellence.

In not dissimilar terms, it was considered that so-called environmental taxes are rooted "in the duty, on the constitutional level, of a widespread protection of the environment as a common good” (Judgment no. 82 of 2021) and reflect, also in the interest of future generations, "the principle of EU derivation ‘polluter pays’” (Judgment no. 52 of 2022).

8.4.– Such a link between the constraints of solidarity and tax imposition, however, has never led to the devaluation of the principle of contributory capacity in the sense of making it indifferent to the manifestation of economic strength.

Significant from this point of view is the judgment that declared the constitutional illegitimacy of the application of the own municipal tax (IMU) to properties occupied abusively, as "it is unreasonable to state that there exists the contributory capacity of the owner who has suffered the abusive occupation of a property that makes it unusable and unavailable and has promptly activated to denounce the occurrence criminally” (Judgment no. 60 of 2024).

Equally relevant is Judgment no. 111 of 2024, which, although relating to an extraordinary imposition justified by strong solidarity needs emerged following extraordinary events like the Ukrainian crisis, took care to specify that in the evaluation of the balance operated by the legislature it is necessary, even in these exceptional cases, "at least the respect for an essential threshold of non-manifest unreasonableness, beyond which the tax duty itself would end up losing its justification in terms of solidarity, resolving itself instead in the perspective of mere subjection to state power,” thus reaching the conclusion of considering constitutionally illegitimate "[the] inclusion, in the taxable base of the extraordinary contribution, of excise duties paid to the State and indicated in active invoices.”

9.– The reconstruction of the structure reached by the constitutional jurisprudence allows now to return *funditus* to the questions raised on the imposition on life annuities, which, as determined by the challenged rule, not only proves to be arbitrary with respect to the prerequisite assumed as an index of contributory capacity, but also presents itself as devoid of any reasonable justification.

It is true, on the one hand, that the inheritance and gift tax "is justified by the enrichment of the heir or beneficiary and therefore by reason of the contributory capacity of the latter, which results to be new and autonomous also with respect to the taxes paid at the time by the predecessor” (Judgment no. 54 of 2000) and that, on the other hand, "the legislature is granted broad discretion in relation to the various purposes to which the activity of tax imposition is inspired” (Judgment no. 108 of 2023), being allowed, "even with the limit of non-arbitrariness, to determine the individual facts expressive of contributory capacity which, as the subject’s suitability for the tax obligation, can be deduced from any revealing index of wealth” (*ex plurimis*, Judgment no. 111 of 1997).

However, the challenged rule produces, in the described conditions of interest rates below unity, a tax situation that appears "as extreme” (Judgment no. 180 of 2025), not only because it determines an effect that appears, considering the current life expectancy, even worse than the "confiscatory” one lamented by the referring judge—in the sense that the tax imposition can far exceed the value of the legacy—but also entirely devoid of even a minimum rational justification.

In fact, it produces the effect of "destroying” fiscally an institution, like the annuity legacy, which has traditionally developed also towards a social function, responding to the need to express, *post mortem*, bonds of gratitude or solidarity towards people outside the strict family scope deemed, for various reasons, deserving, such as caregivers or people engaged in social solidarity activities or simply needy.

The challenged rule, in these terms, therefore oversteps into manifest arbitrariness and must be led back into the respect for the principles of reasonableness and contributory capacity.

10.– The legislature itself, moreover, realized the conflict with the Constitution of such a structure.

In the explanatory report to Government Act no. 171 of 2024 (concerning the legislative decree scheme containing provisions for the rationalization of registration tax, inheritance and gift tax, stamp duty, and other indirect taxes other than VAT, approved preliminarily by the Council of Ministers on 9 April 2024) it clarifies that "[t]he intervention, operated in the perspective of rationalizing the discipline of the tax, intends to avoid that the oscillation of the measure of the legal interest rate can entail, for the purposes of calculating the taxable base of the annuity, results not compliant with the constitutional principle of contributory capacity in the years in which the legal interest rate is particularly low and the coefficients for the discounting of the annuity result particularly high and such as to determine results manifestly not coherent with the economic reality.”

Also the technical report relative to the same Government Act highlights that "[t]he rationale of the intervention is that of avoiding that the oscillations of the measure of the legal interest rate can entail, for the purposes of calculating the taxable base, results not compliant with the constitutional principle of contributory capacity.”

10.1.– Article 1(1)(r) of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 2024 has therefore modified Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, in the following terms: "1. The taxable base, regarding annuities and pensions included in the inheritance assets, is determined by assuming:

a) the value equal to forty times the annual amount if it concerns a perpetual or indefinite annuity;

b) the current value of the annual amount, calculated at the legal interest rate, if it concerns a fixed-term annuity or pension; if termination is provided for the effect of the death of the beneficiary or of a different person, the value cannot exceed that determined according to letter c) with reference to the maximum duration;

c) the value obtained by multiplying the annual amount by the coefficient indicated in the schedule annexed to this Consolidated Text, in relation to the age of the person upon whose death it must cease, if it concerns a life annuity or pension; in the case of an annuity or pension established jointly in favor of more persons, the age of the least young of the beneficiaries is taken into account if termination is provided for with the death of any one of them, the age of the youngest if there is a right of accrual between them; if termination is provided for by the effect of the death of a person other than the beneficiaries, the age of this one is taken into account.

1-bis. The schedule of coefficients annexed to this Consolidated Text and the value of the annuity multiplier indicated in paragraph 1(a), are varied due to the modification of the measure of the legal interest rate, by decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, to be published in the Official Gazette no later than 31 December of the year in which said modification occurred. The variations referred to in the first period are effective for successions opened and gifts made starting from 1 January of the year following that in which the variation decree is published.

1-ter. For the purposes of determining the values referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1-bis, a legal interest rate lower than 2.5 percent cannot be assumed.”

In essence, regarding the methods of calculating the inheritance and gift tax relating to the life annuity, the legislature has made three significant modifications:

a) firstly, it provided that the schedule of coefficients to refer to for the tax calculation is no longer the one annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, but the one annexed to the Consolidated Text;

b) secondly, it established that the schedule of coefficients is varied due to the modification of the measure of the legal interest rate by decree of the Minister of Economy and Finance. Previously, the variation of the schedule of coefficients annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, to which the original text of Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990 referred, was provided by Article 3(164) of Law no. 662 of 1996 which, consequently, has now been repealed;

c) finally, and this is the most relevant novelty for what interests here, it fixed a limit to the legal interest rate to which reference must be made for the modification of the schedule of coefficients: for this purpose, in fact, "a legal interest rate lower than 2.5 percent cannot be assumed.”

In this way, the undue effect that occurred, for what was previously highlighted, when the interest rate was below unity is avoided: in effect, for example, applying this criterion, in the case object of the main judgment, the multiplication of the annual value of the annuity would have happened for 12 instead of 150.

10.2.– The same legislative decree also introduced, with Article 9, an intertemporal discipline of application of the changes made.

In particular, it first specified, in paragraph 3, that "[t]he provisions referred to in this decree have effect starting from 1 January 2025 and apply to public acts formed, to judicial acts published or issued, to authenticated private writings or presented for registration starting from that date, as well as to successions opened and acts for free made starting from that date.”

In the subsequent paragraph 4, it then established the rules for the previous discipline, providing that "[f]or annuities established prior to the date of entry into force of this decree as well as for successions opened and gifts made prior to that date, for the purposes of determining the taxable base of life annuities referred to in Article 46(2)(c) of the consolidated text of the provisions concerning registration tax referred to in Presidential Decree no. 131 of 26 April 1986 and to Article 17(1)(c) of the consolidated text of the provisions concerning inheritance and gift tax referred to in Legislative Decree no. 346 of 31 October 1990, regarding which the relative relationships are not closed at the date of entry into force of this decree, where the legal interest rate is equal to or lower than 0.1 percent, the coefficients resulting from the schedule annexed to the Decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance of 21 December 2015, published in the Official Gazette no. 302 of 30 December 2015, are to be assumed.”

It follows that, for the purposes of inheritance and gift taxes, regarding annuities established prior to the date of entry into force of the decree, for the periods in which the legal interest rate was equal to or lower than 0.1 percent, it is necessary to take into account the coefficients resulting from the schedule annexed to the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015, published in the Official Gazette no. 302 of 30 December 2015; for the periods in which, instead, the legal interest rate was higher than 0.1 percent, it is implicit that the previous regime continues to apply and therefore the coefficients provided from time to time and annexed to Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, to which Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990 referred.

10.3.– The event brought to the attention of this Court falls, as the referring judge notes, into this last regime, since the rate applicable at the moment of the opening of the succession (2016), was 0.2 percent, or that established by the Ministerial Decree of 21 December 2015, of which the application is provided for in cases of interest rate equal to or lower than 0.1 percent.

In these terms, the intertemporal discipline not only does not affect the constitutional *vulnera* previously highlighted, but is not even capable of overcoming them for the periods it considers, which imposes intervention also through declarations of constitutional illegitimacy in a consequential way.

11.– It must therefore be, firstly, declared the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, in the text applicable before the aforementioned amendment, in the part in which it does not provide that, for the purposes of determining the value referred to in paragraph 1(c), a legal interest rate lower than 2.5 percent cannot be assumed.

Such a measure, selected by the legislature for the regime discipline, appears in fact a pre-given magnitude capable of constituting a point of reference already present in the legal order (*ex multis*, judgments no. 31 of 2025, no. 128, no. 90, and no. 6 of 2024 and no. 95 of 2022) usable for the purpose of leading the challenged rule back to a non-unreasonable correlation with the principle of contributory capacity.

To the 2.5 percent rate, the ministerial schedules of the 2004-2007 period referred, which provided, for the age between 76 and 78 years, a multiplier equal to 12 (very different from the one of 150 otherwise applicable to the case object of the main judgment).

It is an empirical solution, followed by the legislature itself in its discretion, which brings the measure of the tax back to a non-unreasonable dimension, even if, more generally, a regulatory intervention that calibrated with knowable and rationally justifiable criteria, also regarding the calculation method, the tax imposition on life annuities would certainly be desirable.

11.1.– To the same conclusion one must arrive, extending consequentially, pursuant to Article 27 of Law no. 87 of 11 March 1953 (Rules on the constitution and functioning of the Constitutional Court), the same declaration of partial constitutional illegitimacy also to Article 46 of Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, which contains, for the purposes of determining the taxable base of the registration tax relating to the life annuity, a provision exactly identical to the challenged one.

11.2.– The declaration of constitutional illegitimacy in a consequential way, furthermore, cannot but concern the same criterion used for the intertemporal solution, identified for the cases in which the interest rate is equal to or lower than 0.1 percent, for which it is provided that the Table of coefficients referred to in the schedule annexed to the Decree of the Minister of Economy and Finance of 21 December 2015 finds application.

Precisely such a Table is the one applicable to the case under examination and which returns, as has been seen, abnormal results and not compliant with the principles of reasonableness and contributory capacity.

Moreover, it results to be contradictory that the limit of 2.5 percent, applicable for the future, once identified by the legislature itself as a criterion capable of leading the system back to reasonableness, is not applied also for pending situations for which, likewise, the same problem arises.

It must therefore be declared the constitutional illegitimacy also of Article 9(4) of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 2024.

11.3.– It must, finally, be specified that with Legislative Decree no. 123 of 1 August 2025 (Consolidated text of the legislative provisions regarding registration tax and other indirect taxes) the legislature reorganized into a single normative *corpus* the legislative provisions in force regarding registration tax and other indirect taxes. The consolidated text entered into force on 13 August 2025, but with deferred effect to 1 January 2027.

The provision of Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 1990, as modified, was transferred into Article 102 of the cited consolidated text.

In particular, paragraphs 2 to 4 provide:

"2. The schedule of coefficients referred to in Annex 4 to this consolidated text and the value of the annuity multiplier indicated in paragraph 1(a), are varied due to the modification of the measure of the legal interest rate, by decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, to be published in the Official Gazette no later than 31 December of the year in which said modification occurred. The variations referred to in the first period are effective for successions opened and gifts made starting from 1 January of the year following that in which the variation decree is published.

3. For the purposes of determining the values referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, a legal interest rate lower than 2.5 percent cannot be assumed.

4. For annuities established prior to the date of entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 18 September 2024, as well as for successions opened and gifts made prior to that date, for the purposes of determining the taxable base of life annuities referred to in paragraph 1(c), and Article 50(2)(c), regarding which the relative relationships are not closed at the date of entry into force of the aforementioned legislative decree, where the legal interest rate is equal to or lower than 0.1 percent, the coefficients resulting from the schedule annexed to the Decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance of 21 December 2015, published in the Official Gazette no. 302 of 30 December 2015, are to be assumed.”

It must be highlighted that paragraph 4 of Article 102 of the cited consolidated text regulates the transitional discipline both with reference to the determination of the taxable base of the inheritance and gift tax relating to the life annuity, referred to in paragraph 1(c) of the same article, and that of the registration tax referred to in Article 50(2)(c) of the same legislative decree.

Paragraph 4, therefore, as it transferred into the aforementioned consolidated text the transitional discipline referred to in Article 9(4) of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 2024 to which reference was made above, must be declared constitutionally illegitimate in a consequential way, for the same reasons already illustrated above (supra, point 11.2.).

11.4.– For analogous reasons, finally, the constitutional illegitimacy must also be declared in a consequential way of Article 50(8) of Legislative Decree no. 123 of 2025, which transferred into the consolidated text the provision referred to in Article 46 of Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986 containing an analogous provision, regarding the registration tax relating to the life annuity.

The provision of paragraph 8 of Article 50 is in fact of the following tenor:

"For annuities established prior to the date of entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 18 September 2024, as well as for successions opened and gifts made prior to that date, for the purposes of determining the taxable base of life annuities referred to in paragraph 2(c), and Article 102(1)(c), regarding which the relative relationships are not closed at the date of entry into force of the aforementioned legislative decree, where the legal interest rate is equal to or lower than 0.1 percent, the coefficients resulting from the schedule annexed to the Decree of the Ministry of Economy and Finance of 21 December 2015, published in the Official Gazette no. 302 of 30 December 2015, are to be assumed.”

Therefore, since the provision is analogous to that of Article 46 of Presidential Decree no. 131 of 1986, its constitutional illegitimacy must also be declared in a consequential way.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 17 of Legislative Decree no. 346 of 31 October 1990 (Approval of the Consolidated Text of the provisions concerning inheritance and gift tax), in the text applicable before the amendment referred to in Article 1(1)(r) of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 18 September 2024 (Provisions for the rationalization of registration tax, inheritance and gift tax, stamp duty, and other indirect taxes other than VAT), in the part in which it does not provide that, for the purposes of determining the value referred to in paragraph 1(c) of the same article, a legal interest rate lower than 2.5 percent cannot be assumed;

2) declares, in a consequential way, pursuant to Article 27 of Law no. 87 of 11 March 1953 (Rules on the constitution and functioning of the Constitutional Court), the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 46 of Presidential Decree no. 131 of 26 April 1986 (Approval of the Consolidated Text of the provisions concerning registration tax), in the part in which it does not provide that, for the purposes of determining the value referred to in paragraph 2(c) of the same article, a legal interest rate lower than 2.5 percent cannot be assumed;

3) declares, in a consequential way, pursuant to Article 27 of Law no. 87 of 1953, the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 9(4) of Legislative Decree no. 139 of 2024;

4) declares, in a consequential way, pursuant to Article 27 of Law no. 87 of 1953, the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 102(4) of Legislative Decree no. 123 of 1 August 2025 (Consolidated text of the legislative provisions regarding registration tax and other indirect taxes);

5) declares, in a consequential way, pursuant to Article 27 of Law no. 87 of 1953, the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 50(8) of Legislative Decree no. 123 of 2025.

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 23 March 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Luca ANTONINI, Reporting Judge

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Chancellor

Deposited in the Registry on 28 May 2026

The anonymized version conforms, in the text, to the original