21 January 2026
Pay and Benefits
Company Car for Mixed Use: Full Taxation on Costs Exceeding the Fringe Benefit Value
Revenue Agency
A company introduced a new policy for the assignment of company cars for mixed use to managerial staff, under which the employee contributes in full to the cost of the vehicle. In particular, in addition to a monthly deduction equal to the conventional fringe benefit value, the employer arranged for the remaining leasing cost to be charged against the variable pay due to the worker.
The Revenue Agency clarified that a worker may reduce the fringe benefit value to zero by means of monthly deductions corresponding to the conventional value determined under the flat-rate criteria applicable to mixed-use vehicles. However, additional amounts charged to the worker to cover the residual cost borne by the company cannot reduce the taxable base.
It follows that such amounts must be withheld from net variable pay and remain fiscally relevant for the purposes of determining employment income. The ruling reaffirms the general principle of the all-inclusive nature of taxable remuneration, limiting the tax neutralisation effect to deductions referable solely to the conventional value of the benefit.
13 February 2026
Pay and Benefits
Fringe Benefits and Stock Options for Retired Workers: Data Must Be Sent to INPS by 28 February
INPS
In a recent communication, INPS provided operational guidance for employers regarding remuneration paid in the form of fringe benefits and stock options to workers who left service with a right to a pension during the 2025 tax year.
The intervention falls within the framework of obligations connected to the Institute’s role as withholding agent for such individuals. In particular, it is clarified that where such benefits are granted after the termination of employment, employers are required to transmit the necessary information to INPS promptly, in order to allow the correct tax adjustment and the subsequent preparation of the Unique Certifications.
Data must be transmitted exclusively by electronic means by 28 February 2026, using the dedicated service available on the institutional portal. INPS notes that any submissions made after the deadline cannot be taken into account for year-end adjustment purposes and will require the correction of certifications issued to the worker, potentially obliging the latter to file an income tax return.
The communication also recalls the application of the so-called “extended cash” principle, under which amounts paid within the first few days of the following year may be attributed to the preceding tax period.
27 February 2026
Incentives
Impatriate Regime: The Employer of Record’s Group Is Relevant for the Foreign Residence Requirement
Revenue Agency
A worker transferred his tax residence to Italy after having worked abroad for various client companies, formally employed through entities acting as employer of record belonging to the same corporate group. Upon returning, he continued his activity in Italy through a different employer of record, but one belonging to the same group as the previous one.
The Revenue Agency clarified that, for the purposes of accessing the new preferential regime for impatriate workers, the relevant continuity is to be assessed not by reference to the companies for which the work was actually performed, but to the formal employer or the corporate group to which it belongs. Accordingly, where a worker returns to Italy while continuing to be employed by an employer of record traceable to the same group as the foreign one, the minimum period of residence outside Italy is extended beyond the standard duration.
In such cases, the period of foreign tax residence required to benefit from the relief is at least six tax years, regardless of whether the companies for which the work was actually carried out have any connection with one another. Verification of the factual conditions required for access to the benefit remains subject to subsequent audit activity.
12 February 2026
Workplace Harassment
Mobbing: Personal Liability of the Manager Where the Employer Has Adopted Protective Measures
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker brought proceedings claiming that she had been progressively stripped of the care-related duties associated with her professional profile and assigned to different activities, as a result of repeated initiatives by her line manager. The Tribunal upheld the compensation claim against the manager, while excluding any liability on the part of the employing company. The decision was confirmed on appeal and subsequently examined by the Court of Cassation.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that persecutory and harassing conduct in the workplace may give rise to personal liability for compensation on the part of the worker who engaged in it, where it is established that the employer supervised the employee’s conduct and adopted the measures necessary to prevent or counter such behaviour. In that case, the functional link between the manager’s actions and the employer’s organisation is severed.
It follows that, once the employer’s contractual liability for breach of the obligation to protect the psychophysical integrity of staff has been excluded, harassing conduct remains attributable to its perpetrator on grounds of tortious liability. The court may also proceed to the correct legal characterisation of the compensation claim, without altering its factual basis, bringing the alleged conduct within the framework of personal civil liability.
26 February 2026
Worker Monitoring
Investigative Surveillance and False Time-Stamping: Dismissal Lawful for Fraudulent Conduct
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker challenged the disciplinary dismissal served by the company, arguing that the surveillance carried out through a private investigation agency was unlawful and that the alleged conduct was not made out. Both the Tribunal and, subsequently, the Court of Appeal — including on remand — found the alleged conduct proven: the worker had repeatedly left the workplace for personal reasons while simultaneously recording his presence through false time-stamping.
The Supreme Court confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal, noting that surveillance entrusted to private investigators is permitted where aimed at establishing unlawful conduct by the worker going beyond mere failure to perform. In this light, checks carried out outside company premises over a limited period are compatible with the employer’s legitimate interest in protecting its assets and organisation. The repeated commission of fraudulent conduct capable of providing a distorted representation of attendance at work constitutes a serious breach of trust, sufficient to justify dismissal for just cause.
23 February 2026
Individual Dismissal
Oral Dismissal: The Burden Falls on the Worker to Prove That Termination Was the Employer’s Decision
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker brought proceedings to obtain recognition of outstanding pay differentials and to have the termination of his employment established as the result of an oral dismissal. At first instance both claims were dismissed, while the Court of Appeal recognised certain economic entitlements but excluded proof of dismissal by the employer.
The case came before the Court of Cassation, which reaffirmed a well-established principle on termination of employment. Where a worker challenges a dismissal allegedly communicated orally, the burden falls on the worker to demonstrate that the termination of the relationship is attributable to the employer’s will, even if expressed through conclusive conduct. The mere cessation of work activity is not sufficient.
Where the employer contends that termination occurred by resignation and the evidence does not allow the sequence of events to be established with certainty, the worker’s claim must be dismissed in application of the rules on the burden of proof. In the case at hand, the existence of an uncontested letter of resignation reinforced the conclusion that dismissal had not been proven.
The ruling thus confirms the central importance of the allocation of the burden of proof in disputes concerning the termination of employment.
4 February 2026
Employed and Self-Employed Work
Cohabitation and Work at the Practice: Subordination Is Possible Once the Presumption of Gratuitousness Is Rebutted
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker brought proceedings to obtain recognition of the subordinate nature of the employment relationship she had maintained for many years at a professional practice, as well as payment of her severance pay (TFR). The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the presumption of gratuitousness arising from the affective relationship and cohabitation with the practice owner had not been rebutted. The Court of Appeal, however, established the existence of subordination, relying on documentary and witness evidence concerning the continuity of the services rendered and the payment of remuneration.
The Supreme Court confirmed this approach, reaffirming that, where a romantic relationship and cohabitation exist, work performed in favour of the employer is presumed to have been carried out in a spirit of solidarity or goodwill. However, this presumption may be rebutted where concrete indicators of subordination are proven, such as stable integration into the company’s organisation, use of work tools, payment of fixed remuneration, and the absence of economic risk on the worker’s part.
Even in personal and family contexts, therefore, a subordinate employment relationship may exist, provided that the evidence allows the professional — rather than merely affective — nature of the collaboration to be established rigorously.
