Key points
Order 9347/2026 of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) on Single Betting Tax clarifies that the actual-margin regime rewards operators that have regularised their position, while the flat-rate regime applies to those that have not, although detailed evidence of stakes and winnings is permitted. The judgment reiterates that the legislation aims to bring undeclared activities to light and oversee the sector, rather than impose penalties.
Introduction
The gaming and betting sector in Italy is governed by a complex tax framework. For operators, understanding how Single Betting Tax is calculated is essential for compliance and defence in the event of a tax assessment. We examine recent developments in case law, particularly ruling no. 9347 of 2026 of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione).The Actual-Margin Tax Regime: Application Criteria
The determination of the taxable amount and tax for operators in the sector depends on whether their operations are compliant. The tax regime based on actual margins applies tax to the difference between stakes and winnings and was introduced by art. 1, comma 945, della legge n. 208/2015.This more favourable system is not automatic but applies exclusively to:
- Operators whose bet-taking activities are managed in a compliant and verifiable manner.
- Entities connected to the national totalisator.
- Operators that have regularised their position.
This approach rewards operational compliance and forms part of the measures to bring irregular positions to light. Accordingly, those who do not fall within these categories cannot rely on this provision.
The Flat-Rate Regime for Operators That Have Not Regularised Their Position
For those who have not regularised their position, the flat-rate regime under art. 1, comma 644, lett. G), della legge n. 190/2014 continues to apply. This regime constitutes the residual measure for those outside the actual-margin system.Legal Nature of the Flat-Rate Regime
It is essential to identify the nature of the flat-rate regime to avoid adverse interpretations. The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) has clarified that art. 1, comma 644, lett. g), L. n. 190/2014:- Is not punitive in nature.
- The flat-rate determination is inferential in nature.
- Constitutes a presumption iuris tantum.
The Practical Case Examined by the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), No. 9347/2026
Order 9347/2026 arose from a tax assessment notice for Single Betting Tax for 2016, served on a Maltese bookmaker and a Data Transmission Centre (CTD). The Agency had reconstructed the taxable amount by inference, applying the maximum rate of 8% to three times the provincial average of stakes collected, pursuant to art. 1, comma 644, lett. G), L. n. 190/2014.The taxpayers challenged the notice, alleging a breach of art. 1, comma 945, L. n. 208/2015, which introduced the new difference-based method from 1 January 2016 for fixed-odds betting other than horse-race betting, replacing the previous flat-rate regime.
The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) dismissed the appeal, stating that comma 945 affects only the method of calculating the tax, not the objective and subjective conditions for liability. The Court noted the appellants' lack of evidence capable of reconstructing their activities, which was decisive for the outcome of the appeal. The other grounds were also rejected, including the request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice, which had already ruled on the system's compatibility with EU law (judgment of 26 February 2020, Case C-788/18).
Burden of Proof: Defence Strategies and Overcoming Inaction
Although the flat-rate regime constitutes a presumption iuris tantum, the taxpayer always has the opportunity to provide detailed evidence of actual stakes. This is the key mechanism for protecting operators.The taxpayer bears the burden of providing evidence of the activities actually carried out, demonstrating the type and scale of the events on which bets were placed. Only by proving the actual amount of:
- Stakes.
- Winnings paid.
- Costs incurred.
Is it possible to access the ordinary regime instead of the flat-rate determination. These data must be provided in a detailed and verifiable manner.
This defence strategy can be adopted as early as the consultation stage within the administrative procedure (assessment), both for tax periods from 2016 onwards and in pending proceedings in which the tax office has automatically applied the flat-rate coefficient. The documentation may also be produced during litigation.
The Temporal Succession of Laws
Case law has drawn a clear temporal distinction for the application of the legislation:- Periods from 1 January 2016: The criterion under art. 1, comma 644, lett. g), L. n. 190/2014 applies, following the approach established by the order under discussion.
- Periods before 2016: The method under art. 24, comma 10, dl n. 98/2011 continues to apply, as specified by the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) in Order no. 5924/2026.
Ratio Legis, Sector Oversight and Public Order
The rules governing Single Betting Tax are viewed as a tool for bringing undeclared activities to light and overseeing the sector. This approach is consistent with the ratio legis of art. 1, comma 64, della L. 220/2010, which aims at:- Consumer protection.
- Combating underage gambling.
- Preventing infiltration by organised crime.
