Inactive VAT Registrations: Ex Officio Closure Looks at Actual Activity, Not at the Tax Return

Introduction

The annual filing of the tax return, even in the absence of transactions, may no longer be sufficient to avoid the ex officio closure of a VAT registration. By Order ref. no. 277710 of 12 October 2026, the Director of the Italian Revenue Agency has in fact amended the criteria for identifying inactive VAT registrations, shifting the focus from the filing of returns to concrete evidence that a business is actually being carried on, such as electronic invoices, electronically transmitted daily takings and payments.

The Rules in the Consolidated VAT Law and the Changes Introduced by the New Order

Art. 35, para. 15-quinquies, of Presidential Decree no. 633/1972 provides that the Italian Revenue Agency is to proceed with the ex officio closure of the VAT registrations of persons who, on the basis of the data and information at its disposal, appear not to have carried on, in the three preceding years, any business, artistic or professional activity, without prejudice to its powers of control and assessment. The provision refers to an order of the Director of the Agency for the definition of the criteria and implementing procedures, while in any event requiring that a prior notice be sent to the taxpayer.

The previous order of 3 December 2019, ref. no. 1415522, identified inactive persons through automated checks based on the failure to file, over the three-year period, the VAT return or the income tax return relating to self-employment or business income. In this way, the filing of the return effectively became an indicator that the activity was being carried on: those who continued to file returns, even without carrying out any actual transactions, remained outside the procedure. It is precisely on this point that the new order intervenes.

The new point 2.1 in fact removes any reference to returns and identifies as sources of verification the information available in the Tax Registry (Anagrafe tributaria), including that relating to electronic invoices, electronically transmitted daily takings and payments made through voluntary collection. The amendment is justified by the growing availability of more accurate and timely data on whether the activity is actually being carried on and, in practical terms, leads to a potential widening of the group of taxpayers concerned: taxpayers who have regularly filed their returns, but without leaving any concrete trace of operations, may also fall within the procedure. It nevertheless remains the case, as point 3.8 clarifies, that automated checks cannot, on their own, constitute the basis for decisions or measures.

Once a potentially inactive person has been identified, the Agency is required to inform them in advance. In this respect too, the new order introduces more detailed rules: the notice is sent to the digital domicile of the holder, pursuant to art. 60-ter of Presidential Decree no. 600/1973, or, failing that, to the digital domicile of the representative; only where both are absent is it sent by registered letter with return receipt to the tax domicile. The document is also made available in the “L’Agenzia scrive” section of the Cassetto fiscale (the taxpayer’s online tax account), with a notice in the reserved area and a message via the IO app.

The notice assumes even greater importance because it also marks the moment from which the effects of the closure run. The 2019 order did not expressly specify this starting point, whereas the new point 2.6 provides that the closure takes effect on the sixtieth day following receipt of the notice or, where delivery is not possible, from the date on which it is made available in the reserved area. Within the same 60-day period, the taxpayer may contact any local office of the Italian Revenue Agency to provide evidence demonstrating that the conditions for closure are not met.

The new text also expressly regulates what happens once the period has expired. The 2019 order provided for reactivation only of the tax code of persons other than individuals, without regulating requests relating to a VAT registration that had already been closed, a matter that remained essentially left to the practice of the offices through requests for administrative self-redress (autotutela). Points 2.8 and 2.9 now fill this gap, allowing a taxpayer who considers the closure unlawful to submit a reasoned request for reactivation of the VAT registration and, where it has been extinguished, of the tax code as well. The office, having assessed the arguments and documentation submitted, may order the reactivation with effect from the original date of opening and without interruption.

The amendments should therefore be read as a coherent whole. Moving away from the criterion based on the filing of returns allows the Agency to capture even situations in which formal obligations have been fulfilled but no concrete evidence of the activity being carried on emerges. Under this new framework, the prior notice becomes the central moment for asserting circumstances that automated checks are unable to detect, while the possibility of obtaining reactivation with effect from the original date offers an express remedy even to those who did not react within the prescribed period.