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 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…