Professional Liability of the Accountant

The recent Supreme Court of Cassation orders Nos . 5635 and 5638 of March 12, 2026, have significantly reopened the debate on the professional liability of accountants, particularly regarding their role in the electronic transmission of tax returns. The rulings, upon initial reading, raised serious concerns among the profession, as they appeared to extend the scope of liability to situations traditionally considered outside the professional’s substantive control.

 Specifically, the initial interpretation implied that the accountant could be held liable even if he or she merely submitted the tax return, even if he or she had not prepared it. This approach would have significantly increased professional risk, significantly impacting the organization of the firm and the management of assignments.

Following initial reactions, however, the most authoritative scholars and professional bodies have intervened to provide a systematic interpretation of the rulings, bringing them within more balanced boundaries and consistent with the general principles of the tax system. This document aims to provide an updated and operational framework, useful for understanding the limits of liability and adopting appropriate protective measures.

• The Concrete Case.

The specific case examined by the Court concerns a professional who had submitted a tax return containing clearly non-deductible negative items, including the full deduction of fuel costs and fees without adequate documentation. In this context, the Court of Cassation held that electronic filing cannot be considered a merely formal activity, but constitutes an act that entails liability when the professional is able, with the required diligence, to detect obvious irregularities.

The established principle is based on the idea that submitting the tax return represents an implicit form of validation of its content, especially in cases where the accountant is also responsible for bookkeeping or otherwise has the information necessary to perform a substantive audit. In such cases, failure to detect gross anomalies may constitute a form of complicity in the tax violation.

• Administrative and Criminal Responsibility.

To fully understand the scope of this approach, it is necessary to place it within the current regulatory framework. The administrative liability of accountants is based on Article 9 of Legislative Decree 472/1997, which regulates participation in the violation. This provision allows the sanction to be extended to individuals other than the taxpayer, if their conduct contributed to the commission of the offense.

This is complemented by further provisions that define the scope of liability. Specifically, Article 7 of Legislative Decree 269/2003 provides that sanctions are attributable to the legal entity in the case of joint-stock companies, introducing a principle of separation that, however, does not automatically apply to external consultants. In criminal law, however, the provisions on complicity in the crime apply, which require a more intense and qualified subjective element.

This results in a complex system, in which the professional’s liability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account both the nature of the offense and the degree of involvement in the client’s business.

With regard to administrative liability, a key element is so-called “qualified awareness.” Mere negligence or a technical error is not sufficient to establish the accountant’s liability. The irregularity must be manifest, i.e., immediately perceptible to a diligent professional, and the individual must have been able to detect it using the ordinary diligence required by their qualifications.

In this sense, jurisprudence has identified some criteria relevant interpretations :

• the evident nature of the violation, which must emerge without the need for complex investigations.
• the possible repetitiveness of irregularities over time, which can constitute an indicator of the professional’s awareness.
• the qualified diligence required of the accountant, which is not limited to the mere formal execution of the assignment, but implies substantial control within the limits of the activities entrusted.

The framework for criminal liability is different, characterized by a higher threshold. In this context, intent is required, that is, the conscious intent to contribute to the commission of the crime. The professional is criminally liable only when he provides an intentional causal contribution , by actively participating in fraudulent schemes or sham transactions.

Case law clearly distinguishes between legitimate consulting activities, including those aimed at tax savings, and unlawful conduct. In the former case, the professional operates within the law, exercising his or her technical role; in the latter, however, he or she becomes an integral part of the fraudulent mechanism, assuming direct liability.

• The Letter of Appointment.

After the initial alarm raised by the March ordinances, a more balanced interpretation has emerged, authoritatively supported by scholars and adopted by the CNDCEC [1]. This interpretation distinguishes two professional roles:

1. The Accountant as “Preparator and Transmitter”: The person entrusted with keeping the accounts, preparing the financial statements, and preparing the tax returns has a professional obligation to verify the accuracy of the data. In this case, the liability for obvious violations is full.
2. The “Mere Transmitter” Accountant: Those assigned a mandate limited to the electronic transmission of tax returns prepared independently by the client (or third parties) have no general obligation to verify the content. In the absence of a verification mandate, the taxpayer remains responsible for the content of the tax return.

The crucial issue then becomes the proof of the scope of the assignment: the assignment letter takes on a decisive evidentiary value.

In this context, the engagement letter plays a key role, as it allows for the precise definition of the scope of the assigned activities and the identification of the parties’ responsibilities. A correct contractual definition therefore represents a fundamental protection tool for the professional.

A further limitation on liability is represented by so-called complex issues. These are situations where the law is uncertain or subject to conflicting interpretations. In such cases, a professional who adopts a reasonable solution, supported by adequate justification, cannot be penalized, even if the interpretation adopted is subsequently disregarded.

This principle is based on the concept of culpability, which is one of the cornerstones of the sanctioning system. In the presence of objective regulatory uncertainty, any liability on the part of the professional ceases to exist. From an operational perspective, it is therefore essential to document the choices made in order to demonstrate the correctness of the adopted behavior.

• Artificial Intelligence .

The use of artificial intelligence tools in professional practice is particularly relevant in the current context. The growing diffusion of these technologies requires a reflection on their impact on liability. The principle that clearly emerges is that the use of artificial intelligence does not alter the framework of liability, which remains entirely with the professional.

Artificial intelligence must be considered an operational tool, like any other management software. Consequently, accountants are required to verify and validate the results produced, assuming full responsibility for the final content. This obligation is particularly stringent in cases of complex or interpretive activities, but can be relaxed for standardized activities, provided adequate controls are ensured.

A specific risk associated with the use of artificial intelligence is the possibility of generating incorrect, incomplete, or outdated information. Uncritical reliance on these tools can result in a breach of due diligence, exposing the professional to liability. It is therefore necessary to adopt a prudent approach, based on verifying sources and validating content.

• Practical Protective Measures.

Good practices relating to the organisation of a Professional Office should include:

• Letter of Engagement : Review contracts to precisely define the scope of the mandate. Clearly distinguish between “bookkeeping and filing” and “mere electronic transmission.” Specify the client’s obligations to provide complete and truthful data.
• Professional liability insurance : Insurance is mandatory (Legislative Decree 138/2011, art. 3 c. 5), as reiterated by the CNDCEC Pronto Ordini 86/2025. It is essential to verify that the limits are adequate and that the policy explicitly covers cases of liability for administrative sanctions (competition).
• Internal Audit Checklist : Implement control procedures focused on the areas at greatest risk of dispute (car costs, telephone costs, entertainment expenses, gifts, occasional collaborations).
• Written Communications (PEC): When the professional detects irregularities or doubts in the documentation provided by the client, it is essential to formalize the finding in writing (via PEC), keeping a record of the report.
• Continuous Training : Maintain constant updates on Revenue Agency circulars and relevant case law to monitor the evolution of “complex issues”.

• Operational Considerations and Conclusions.

The framework of professional liability, initially made uncertain by the ordinances of March 2026, now appears more defined and reasonable thanks to the intervention of legal scholars and institutions. The scope of liability has been brought back to criteria of proportionality and balance:

§ § § § § §

Don’t hesitate to contact us for further information or to receive support in complying with the new regulatory provisions.

Best regards,

Sara Razzi

This newsletter is the result of a collaboration between artificial intelligence and human expertise, with review and editorial care by Sara Razzi

[1]Vincenzo Carbone, Congress of the Union of Young Accountants, Eutekne, March 28, 2026