The issue of IMU exemption for non-commercial entities is once again at the center of the jurisprudential debate, with particular reference to state-equivalent schools. The Second-degree Tax Justice Court of Piedmont, with ruling no. 302/2/26 of March 31, 2026, has indeed highlighted potential conflicts between the interpretive criteria introduced by Art. 1, paragraph 856, of Law No. 199 of December 30, 2025, and European State aid regulations.
The regulatory framework remains that of Art. 1, paragraph 759, letter g), of Law 160/2019, which provides for the IMU exemption for properties owned and used by non-commercial entities, intended for the performance of the institutional activities mentioned therein in a non-commercial manner. The implementing regulations are contained in Ministerial Decree No. 200 of November 19, 2012, which identifies the general and sectoral requirements for qualifying activities as non-commercial.
State-equivalent activity and average fee
For educational activities, Art. 4 of Ministerial Decree 200/2012 requires, among other things, that the activity be state-equivalent, non-discriminatory, compliant with reception and contractual obligations, and carried out free of charge or for symbolic fees that cover only a fraction of the actual cost of the service. Over time, significant litigation has developed precisely regarding the notion of activities carried out in a non-commercial manner, particularly concerning the interpretation of the “symbolic fees” requirement provided for by the implementing regulations.
Within this context, the legislative intervention of authentic interpretation aims to define the non-commerciality criterion relevant for the IMU exemption for educational activities carried out by non-commercial entities. The provision states that such activities “are understood” to be carried out in a non-commercial manner if the average fee received is lower than the average cost per student, as published annually by the relevant Ministries. Law 199/2025, therefore, does not introduce a new tax relief category but intervenes in the application of an exemption already provided for by the IMU regulations, identifying an objective parameter aimed at overcoming the interpretive uncertainties that have arisen, particularly around the notion of “symbolic fees.”
Critical issues
The critical point, therefore, focuses on the sufficiency of the parameter introduced by Law 199/2025. While at the domestic level, an average fee lower than the average cost per student allows the educational activity to be qualified as non-commercial, it remains to be seen whether this criterion is also suitable for excluding the economic relevance of the activity for the purposes of European State aid regulations. The Piedmontese ruling is situated on this different level: even a rule of authentic interpretation may encounter a limit where the relief translates, in practice, into a selective advantage.
The problematic profile could therefore extend beyond the educational sector. If the doubt concerns the sufficiency of the legal criterion introduced by Law 199/2025 to qualify the activity as non-commercial even in light of European law, the same question could arise for other sectors affected by the authentic interpretation rule, including social assistance and healthcare activities.
Consider, for example, nursing homes, for which it will be necessary to verify whether compliance with the regulatory criteria is sufficient to establish the IMU exemption or whether there remains, in any case, room for evaluating the economic nature of the activity and any selective advantage deriving from the relief.
Despite the very recent legislative intervention, the framework therefore remains in evolution. It will be necessary to see whether the orientation expressed by the Tax Justice Court of Piedmont remains isolated or if it will be confirmed in subsequent case law on the merits and, eventually, in case law on points of law.