IMU exemption: the Cassation changes the rules for spouses with different residences the Cassation confirms the IMU exemption for the main home even if the spouses have separate residences. This decision clarifies the application of the tax and protects taxpayers from restrictive interpretations of the Municipalities.

The IMU is a municipal tax that weighs on the properties, but provides for exemptions, in particular for the main home. However, over the years, numerous disputes have arisen on who can actually benefit from it, especially in the case of spouses with different residences.

A recent order of the Court of Cassation has canceled a IMU assessment considering the restrictive interpretation that imposed the joint residence of the entire family unit illegitimate. This decision could have a significant impact on many taxpayers and municipal budgets.

But what exactly did the Cassation established? And what consequences does this pronunciation involves?

Let’s find out together.

Advertisement – Advertising

The case of the taxpayer and the dispute with the Municipality

The story originates from an IMU assessment issued against a taxpayer for the tax years 2013 and 2014. The entity in charge of collection, operating on behalf of the Municipality of residence of the property, contested the application of the exemption provided for the main home, claiming that the requirements required by the current legislation were not respected.

In particular, the Municipality has based its provision on a rigid interpretation of the standard, according to which to benefit from the exemption IMU L ‘home was to be the residence registry and the usual home not only of the taxpayer, but of all his family unit.

Since the taxpayer’s spouse was resident in another municipality, the Administration believed that the property in question could not be considered as a “main home” for tax purposes and, consequently, requested the payment of the IMU.

The taxpayer challenged the assessment, claiming that the legislation should not be interpreted in such a restrictive way. He highlighted that she resided personally and habitually lived in the property and that this requirement was sufficient to obtain the exemption. In addition, he contested the fact that the administration’s decision was based on an automatic evaluation and not on a concrete analysis of the family situation.

The appeal, however, was initially rejected both by the provincial and regional tax commission. Both tributary judges confirmed the validity of the verification of the local authority, reiterating that to enjoy theIMU exemption Both spouses needed to have habitual residence and residence in the same property.

Faced with this double rejection, the taxpayer decided to bring the question before the Court of Cassation, claiming that the interpretation adopted by the tax judges was contrary to the constitutional principles of tax equity and that the imposition of the IMU was unjustified in the light of his real situation.

Advertisement – Advertising

The sentence of the Constitutional Court n. 209/2022

A decisive element for the decision of the Cassation was the previous intervention of the Constitutional Court with sentence no. 209/2022.

This pronunciation declared theConstitutional illegitimacy of art. 13, paragraph 2, of the decree-law n. 201/2011 (converted into law no. 214/2011), in the part in which it established that, to obtain the IMU exemption on the main home, they had to reside personally and habitually dwelling in the property not only the owner, but also his entire family unit.

The Constitutional Court considered this provision in contrast with the principles of equity and contributory capacity sanctioned by the Italian Constitution. In particular, it highlighted that the concept of “main home” must be referred exclusively to the owner of the property and not automatically extended to other family members.

The sentence had a significant impact, since it has eliminated one of the most rigid restrictions for access to the IMU ensection, thus allowing to recognize it also to those who, despite being owner and living permanently in a property, have a spouse residing elsewhere for personal or working reasons.

This decision has created a new jurisprudential orientation and provided the Cassation a fundamental reference to decide on the case in question.

Advertisement – Advertising

The principle reiterated by the Cassation

In light of the judgment of the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, with ordinance no. 4292/2025, accepted the appeal of the taxpayer and canceled the notices of assessment IMU issued by the Municipality.

In motivating its decision, the Cassation clarified that the criterion for recognizing the IMU exemption must be based exclusively on the registry residence and on the usual home of the owner of the property. This means that, if the home owner lies and dwells on it, the exemption must be recognized, regardless of the fact that the spouse or other family members have a different residence.

In particular, the Court reiterated that the legislation, as originally formulated before the intervention of the Consulta, imposed an excessively rigid and discriminatory constraint. This constraint created disparity of treatment between taxpayers and imposed an additional tax burden unjustified in cases where the spouses, for work reasons, personal needs or other objective situations, lived in different municipalities.

This interpretation, according to the Cassation, contrasted with the principles of equality and contributory capacity sanctioned by article 3 and article 53 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court has established that theIMU assessment was illegitimate And he canceled the requests for payment against the taxpayer. Furthermore, considering that the question addressed derived from a regulatory contrast only recently resolved with the ruling of the Constitutional Court, it deemed it appropriate to order the compensation of the expenses between the parties.

This means that neither the taxpayer nor the Municipality will have to bear additional costs related to the judgment.

The ruling of the Cassation assumes a particular importance because it does not limit itself to resolving a single case, but represents a clear orientation that can be applied in the future to similar situations. This pronouncement, in fact, provides a definitive interpretation on how municipal administrations will have to manage the cases of spouses with separate residences and on access to the IMU area for the main home.