Categories: Insights, Legislation


1 Jan 2017

The authoritative interpretation of the definition of “travelling workers on assignment” provided by the tax decree

Section 7-quinquies of the law which converted decree no. 225 dated 1 December 2016 containing “Urgent fiscal measures and measures for financing non-deferrable requirements ”, published in Official Gazette no. 282/2016, provides an authoritative interpretation of the definition of “earnings from work carried out on assignment” and “travelling worker on assignment”. In particular, paragraph 6 of section 51 of the TUIR (Consolidate Law on Income Taxes) should be interpreted as meaning that travelling workers on assignment are intended as workers for whom the following conditions exist simultaneously: (a) no indication, in the engagement letter, of the place where the work services are to be carried out; b) carrying out work that requires continuous travelling by the employee; c) payment to the employee of an indemnity or fixed higher salary for work carried out in different places, which are paid without specifying whether the employee has actually travelled to the place where the work is to be carried out or the actual place where such work is carried out. The law then states that workers for whom the above provision does not apply because the abovementioned conditions do not exist concurrently are entitled to the treatment set forth for travel allowances provided for by paragraph 5 of section 51. Section 7 – quinquies therefore resolves a debate that had arisen over the years in practice and case law on the correct definition of “travelling worker on assignment”. Moreover, given that this is an authoritative interpretation law, it may be applied retroactively and thus, if the conditions exist, even to previous and pending disputes and lawsuits.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Sep 2026

Company files deleted from the PC: dismissal lawful even without proof of damage

The matter arises from the disciplinary dismissal of an employee performing general secretarial duties who, upon returning the company computer following a change in her duties, handed back…

1 Sep 2026

Overtime work: a summary schedule is not enough, employees must provide strict evidence of both the hours worked and the extent of the overtime performed

With order no. 20700 of 18 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court once again addressed the issue of overtime work, reiterating that employees claiming overtime pay must strictly…

1 Sep 2026

Did you know that… an individual allowance that has remained unchanged for years may become non-absorbable?

In judgment no. 24475 of 5 August 2026, the Employment Section of the Italian Supreme Court confirmed that an individual allowance (i.e. “superminimo”), although normally subject to the…

3 Aug 2026

Pay Transparency: the first requests from employees are starting to arrive (Il Sole 24 Ore, 3 august 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Two months after the decree. Since Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7 June, according to a flash survey conducted by GIDP, 8% of HR directors have…

30 Jul 2026

Corporate controls and data protection: what balance?

A recent judgment of the Court of Pisa, No. 800 of 13 June 2026, addresses a topic of particular interest for companies: the delicate balance between the protection…

30 Jul 2026

Unfair dismissal and reinstatement: the employee must repay the payment in lieu of notice

With order no. 22187 of 28 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment in lieu of notice paid to an employee must be…