Corte di Cassazione, 1 October 2019, no. 24491
Corte di Cassazione, with judgement no. 24491/2019, pronounced upon the burden of proof for the re-hire of dismissed employees.
The Court confirms that the burden is bestowed upon the employer, who must also provide proof of having sought a different, suitable position for the employee.
Tax reimbursement and limitation periodThe Court confirms that the burden is bestowed upon the employer, who must also provide proof of having sought a different, suitable position for the employee.
Corte di Cassazione, 26 September 2019, no. 24012
Tax advisors: OK to the reunion of pension contribution
Corte di Cassazione, with judgement no. 24012 of 26 September 2019, pronounced upon limitation period for reimbursements.
For the reimbursement of sums paid in excess to INPS taxpayers, in order to prevent reaching limitation period, must act within 48 months as per art. 38, Presidential Decree no. 602/1973 and not 10 years as per art. 37. This last term is only applicable for withholdings directly applied by public administrations.
For the reimbursement of sums paid in excess to INPS taxpayers, in order to prevent reaching limitation period, must act within 48 months as per art. 38, Presidential Decree no. 602/1973 and not 10 years as per art. 37. This last term is only applicable for withholdings directly applied by public administrations.
Tax advisors: OK to the reunion of pension contribution
Corte di Cassazione, 15 October 2019, no. 26039
Income from participation to capital companies: not taxable for social contribution purposes
With
judgement no. 26039 of 15 October 2019, Corte di Cassazione confirmed
that the taxpayer – a certified professional enrolled with the
pension fund for chartered tax advisors - is entitled to the reunion of
pension contribution paid to said fund with contribution paid to INPS.
This also applies if the taxpayer’s pension is only calculated on a contribution-based regime.
This also applies if the taxpayer’s pension is only calculated on a contribution-based regime.
Income from participation to capital companies: not taxable for social contribution purposes
Corte di Cassazione, 20 August 2019, no. 21540
Pension credit and admittance to bankruptcy liabilities
With
judgement no. 21540/2019, Corte di Cassazione – Labour section
– pronounced on the calculation of INPS taxable income for
self-employed professionals who perform duties requiring enrolment
under the artisan section of INPS.
Social contribution duties must not consider income from the mere participation to a company, with no performance of work, since income disconnected from work is to be considered capital income and not subject to pension and social contribution charges.
Social contribution duties must not consider income from the mere participation to a company, with no performance of work, since income disconnected from work is to be considered capital income and not subject to pension and social contribution charges.
Pension credit and admittance to bankruptcy liabilities
Corte di Cassazione, order 2 October 2019, no. 24589
With
order no. 24589/2019, Corte di Cassazione pronounced on the collection
of social contribution credits, whenever a tax collection agent is a
party in the trial procedure.
The creditor authority is not a necessary party, and its call to the proceeding may or may not be determined by the judge.
Injury of the apprentice and employer’s liability
The creditor authority is not a necessary party, and its call to the proceeding may or may not be determined by the judge.
Injury of the apprentice and employer’s liability
Corte di Cassazione, 2 October 2019, no. 24629
With
judgement no. 24629/2019, the Supreme Court pronounced on health &
safety obligations that an employer must observe in the presence of an
apprentice.
The employer is bestowed with the burden of proving the adoption of all necessary precautions against the event, with specific reference to the organization of work, especially on the apprentice’s duties, instructions, information and training on inherent risks, while the injured subject’s recklessness in taking an initiative leading to injury doesn’t matter.
The employer is bestowed with the burden of proving the adoption of all necessary precautions against the event, with specific reference to the organization of work, especially on the apprentice’s duties, instructions, information and training on inherent risks, while the injured subject’s recklessness in taking an initiative leading to injury doesn’t matter.
