ADM Calabria 2 voids tax assessments against venue and totem operator

ADM Calabria 2 has cancelled two tax assessments issued on 4 September 2026 for the single tax (imposta unica) against the owner of a restaurant-pizzeria lounge bar in Isola di Capo Rizzuto and against the operator of three gaming totems found at the premises, according to the taxpayers' lawyer Bernardo Procopio of the Crotone bar. The office gave as its reason the failure to apply article 6 bis of law 212/2000, the provision of the taxpayers' rights statute on prior adversarial procedure. The assessments followed checks by the Crotone police headquarters on 8 and 10 February 2022, when officers found three devices connected to the electricity and internet networks but not to the state gaming collection network. According to the reports cited by ADM, the totems reproduced new slot-type games, allowed free internet browsing and gave access to gaming platforms run by parties without any concession or authorisation. The assessments stated that the parties had not submitted observations on the draft act, but their defence submissions had in fact been received on 11 December 2025 and the office had not responded to them as the rule requires.

The appeal lodged with the Catanzaro tax court sets out the figures for the assessment covering tax year 2021. Procopio signed that document, which carries the date 30 October 2026. According to the appeal, the three devices, model Totem Pro Royal-Promo 032 and without an identification code, had been placed under administrative seizure. The office sought 176.040 euro in single tax plus 31.966,93 euro in interest. The pecuniary penalty came to 251.737 euro, or 143% of the tax, and could fall to 83.912 euro with the facilitated settlement. A further sanction was added: closure of the business for six months. The calculation started from a flat-rate taxable base of 3.000 euro per day for each totem, applied to 326 days, from 8 February to 31 December 2021. Each device therefore reached a taxable base of 978.000 euro, making 2.934.000 euro in all.

The first ground concerns the adversarial procedure, and the defence says both taxpayers' submissions reached the office by certified email on 9 December 2025. For the venue owner, that date fell within 60 days of notification of the draft act, which was notified on 10 October 2025. The totem operator, however, was handed the draft by the police headquarters only on 23 June 2026, after the submissions had been sent. The appeal refers to the joint ruling of the Court of Cassation no. 21271 of 25 July 2025. The defence also attacks the reasoning of the assessment, which refers to the police reports, the inspection record and two internal determinations without attaching them. The totem operator, who was not present at the check, was identified on the basis of information gathered and recorded, and the assessment did not reproduce its content. A further ground concerns the signature: an official holding an organisational position signed the assessment, and the manager's delegation measure was not produced.

On the merits, the appeal maintains that the office backdated the start of the totems' activity by one year. It would thus have charged 326 days of collection in 2021 on the basis of a check carried out only in February 2022, without elements proving the devices were at the premises the previous year. The defence calls this an inadmissible double presumption. In the assessment the office reproaches the taxpayers for not providing any documentary proof of the date of the purchase contract, installation and commissioning of the devices. For the defence, requiring a formal contract for devices challenged precisely because they lack authorisation would make absolute a presumption the law treats as relative. The appeal also disputes the nature of the devices, described as stations for free internet browsing. It notes that no technical examination of the terminals' memory shows they were used for gaming in 2021.

In the alternative, the defence contests the 143% penalty. According to the appeal, the office describes the amount of evaded tax as high, only to treat it as low when calculating the increase from 120% to 143%. The defence further maintains that the increase was applied automatically on the basis of an internal circular. The office, the appeal says, did not assess the taxpayers' personality, the absence of repeat offending or their economic and social conditions. The appeal also seeks application of the legal aggregation of penalties, which the office had excluded. As for the six-month closure, the maximum provided, the defence maintains that it was triggered only because the flat-rate taxable base exceeds the 2 million euro threshold set by an internal determination of 2018. The measure is judged disproportionate for a restaurant business unrelated to gaming. With the application for interim suspension, the appellants seek to block provisional collection of half the assessed taxes, equal to 88.020 euro. According to the defence, that collection would lead to the definitive closure of the venue. Principally, the appeal seeks full annulment of the assessment. In the alternative it asks for the tax to be reduced to the amount actually proven by the office and for the penalties not to be applied or to be brought to the minimum. The value of the dispute is stated at 176.040 euro, equal to the tax claimed, with a unified contribution of 500 euro.