Reunification of contributions between funds and separate management is now possible: when it is convenient

Contributions in multiple managements, the ways to reunite

The problem concerns all technical professionals who during their career have alternated or supported their own business with collaborations, co.co.co. or consultancy assignments with payments to the separate management. Those who have 12 years in CIPAG and 8 in Separate Management, for example, risk not meeting the minimum pension requirements in either management. Contributions that exist, but which alone are not enough. The circular regulates two paths:

• the outgoing reunification, which transfers the contributions from the separate management to the professional fund to which they belong;
• the incoming reunification, which transfers contributions from the home fund to the GS.

This second option, however, has stringent constraints, as contributions paid before 1996, i.e. before the establishment of the Separate Management, are excluded.

In concrete terms: an architect registered with Inarcassa since 1993 or a surveyor registered with CIPAG since 1990, even if they have subsequent periods in separate management, cannot transfer the Fund’s contributions to the GS given that it is not possible to apply retroactive provisions. Therefore the filter excludes the majority of professionals with more than thirty years of continuous career in their Fund.

Retirement options

Those who have contributions in multiple managements today have three options:

1. Totalization (Legislative Decree 42/2006) — free, adds the periods for the purposes of the law, but each management pays its share with a contribution calculation. And there is a waiting window of 18 months from the maturation of the right. Pension tends to be lower.
2. Free accumulation (law 232/2016) – this too without charges, each management calculates and pays its share but with its own rules (therefore also remuneration for the periods before ’96). No waiting window. Better than totalization, but they remain two separate pieces.
3. Reconjunction (law 45/1990, now extended by circular 15/2026) — for a fee, but produces a single position in a single management. The advantage is twofold: pension calculated with uniform rules and, above all, the possibility of accessing requirements that would otherwise not be achieved.

Rejoining is convenient when free cumulation is not enough or penalizes. Typical cases:

• the professional wants to access the early pension from the Cassa, which has different (and perhaps more favorable) requirements than the GS;
• the periods in GS are few and with the cumulation they would produce a negligible pension quota calculated only with contributions, while brought into the Fund they are valued better;
• the professional needs to reach a minimum seniority in a specific management to access welfare benefits or increases.

Having decided that reunification is the right path, the direction remains to be chosen. Bringing contributions from the GS into the Fund (leaving the GS) or from the Fund into the GS (entering the GS) is not the same thing, neither in terms of costs nor in terms of effects on the pension.

• Those who leave the GS to the Fund transfer contributions paid at the rate of 33%, significantly higher than that of the professional Funds: the transfer covers the requirement and the operation with the contributory method can be zero cost.
• Those who take the opposite route must instead make up the difference in rate out of their own pocket, with costs that can be significant.

On the other hand, the choice is not just a question of cost: it must be considered where it is best to centralize the pension, what access requirements each management offers and with which calculation rules the allowance will be determined. The following tables compare the numbers of the two directions.

Practical case 1: reunification upon entry into the GS

For the purposes of the example we consider:

• Years of contributions to the Fund: 5
• Average annual income in the last 12 months: 40,000 euros

Practical case 2: Reunion leaving the GS

For the purposes of the example we consider:

• Years in separate management with the Fund: 5, contributory method (contributions paid starting from 2012)
• Average annual income in the last 12 months: 40,000 euros

The cost asymmetry between the two directions depends entirely on the rate differential. The separate management pays 33% of the income, a percentage significantly higher than that required by the funds with the contributory method (14.5% for Inarcassa, 20% for CIPAG). Upon leaving the GS, the transfer largely covers the needs of the receiving fund and the surplus integrates the professional’s contribution amount. Upon entry into the GS the process is reversed: the Fund transfers its own lower rate and the professional must make up the difference up to 33%.

However, the zero cost of leaving the GS is valid only for periods after 2012, for which the contributory method is the only applicable one. For the periods from 1996 to 2012 the professional can choose between the contributory method and the remuneration method (mathematical reserve). The latter uses actuarial coefficients linked to the age, sex and seniority of the member at the date of the application and may entail a burden on the applicant even when leaving the GS. The convenience must be verified case by case with the simulation available on Inarcassa Online and on the CIPAG portal.

Pending applications and appeals

The possibility of reunification applies to applications submitted from the date of publication of the circular (9 February 2026) and to all those already forwarded and not yet defined on the same date. For the different operational cases, INPS reserves the right to provide further information with subsequent messages.

Read and download the INPS circular

For further information, read and download INPS circular no. here. 15 of 9 February 2026 (in PDF format):