First home benefits: here’s when you can get them a second time

The basic rules

The legal reference for the benefit is note II-bis) to article 1 of the Tariff, Part One, attached to Presidential Decree 26 April 1986, n. 131, the Consolidated Law on registration taxes. To access the reduced rate of 2% for the registration tax, or the 4% VAT if purchasing from a business, the property must be located in the municipality in which the buyer already has residence, or must undertake to transfer it within 18 months of purchase.

Alternatively, the Municipality where the work or study activity takes place also applies. For his part, the buyer must not be the owner, sole or jointly with his spouse, of another residential house in the same municipality, and must not be the owner, not even by shares, of rights on another house purchased with the concessions throughout the national territory. And precisely this last requirement, i.e. the prohibition on double use of the benefit, prevails over all other conditions, as clarified a few days ago by the Supreme Court.

The too small house and the new apartment

With order 100/2010, the Court of Cassation had ruled in favor of a taxpayer who believed she could obtain first home benefits for a new purchase in the same municipality in which she already owned a 22.69 meter property as it was deemed “totally insufficient to guarantee suitable living accommodation for her family unit” (also in light of changed family needs). A decision that had long been considered an opening to the possibility of a second tax discount.

However, with order 29262 of 5 November, the Court of Cassation definitively closed this possibility in the event that the apartment which had become too small was in turn purchased with concessions. In fact, the Court stated that the preclusion in this case derives from the prohibition on being the owner, throughout the national territory, of rights on properties for which the tax benefit has already been used, a preclusion which prevails over the argument of subjective unsuitability due to size. It is therefore an absolute impediment.

Properties unusable only for objective criteria

However, there remains the possibility of having the benefits again without selling the pre-owned apartment in the event that it becomes “absolutely unsuitable for residential use” for objective and not subjective reasons, as clarified by the Revenue Agency with Principle of Law 1/2022.

In essence, the new relief is permitted only in the event of “an objective, unforeseeable impediment which cannot be avoided and which has made it impossible for the taxpayer to continue to use the property purchased for residential purposes”. This objective and absolute unsuitability of the property must be demonstrated by suitable documentation and independently of the will of the taxpayer, for example by a declaration of unusability by the competent Authority which orders its seizure as “the health, hygiene, structural, plant engineering and fire safety requirements have failed, to such an extent as to jeopardize public and private safety”, and for as long as this unusability remains.

The jobs that never end

However, no to concessions for those who purchase a property under construction if the works are not completed within three years from the date of the deed. It is not sufficient to transfer the residence or activate the utilities: the decisive element is that the property obtains the definitive cadastral classification, leaving the F/3 category (unit under construction). The Supreme Court established this with order 25790 of 22 September 2025, confirming the forfeiture of the benefits for two taxpayers who had not completed the work within the expected deadline.

The three-year deadline also applies to those who purchase two adjacent properties at the same time with the commitment to unify them into a single home: within three years of registration of the deed the two units must be effectively merged also from a cadastral point of view (ordinance 8139/2025).

Exceptions for inherited and donated properties

However, all the exceptions to the rule already indicated in the past remain standing. As regards the possibility of purchasing a new property in the same Municipality, as clarified by circular 38/2005 of the Revenue Agency, the prohibition on owning another house concerns exclusively exclusive ownership or joint ownership with the spouse in the same Municipality. Therefore, the possession of a portion of an inherited property co-owned by parties other than the spouse does not constitute an obstacle to the benefits, even if it is located in the same municipality.

The same applies in the case of a property inherited or donated as bare ownership. In this case it is possible to access the benefits for the purchase of another home as the same circular 38/2005 specified that the bare owner does not have possession of the property, which belongs to the usufructuary, and is therefore deprived of the concrete possibility of using this property as a main residence.

Furthermore, the relief is also permitted in the case of properties received by inheritance or donation in a municipality other than the one where the purchase is intended, even if preferential taxation has been applied to the deed, as the conditions are different, as specified by Circular 44/2001. In fact, the “first home” subsidy for a free purchase (donation or inheritance) applies to the mortgage and land registry taxes, reducing them to a fixed amount (200 euros each), while for the purchase for consideration (purchase and sale) it applies to the registration tax or VAT. Therefore, since these are different taxes, they do not fall within the prohibition on double use of the relief.