Appurtenances and the “price-value” regime: according to the Court of Cassation, distance alone is not sufficient to exclude an appurtenant link

By order No. 13553 of 10 May 2026, the Italian Court of Cassation returned to the issue of appurtenances for registration tax purposes, clarifying that the physical distance between the main asset and the ancillary asset is not, in itself, sufficient to exclude the existence of an appurtenant link.

The dispute concerned the purchase of two plots of land for a total value of EUR 100,000, in respect of which the parties had requested the application of the so-called “price-value” regime, arguing that one of the plots constituted an appurtenance of the purchaser’s main residence, despite being located approximately 500 metres away.

The Italian Revenue Agency had denied the tax benefit, taking the view that such distance excluded the existence of a stable and functional connection with the main property. The tax claim had also been upheld by the Tax Court of Justice of second instance of Campania, according to which the mere intention of the owner was not sufficient to establish the existence of an appurtenant relationship for tax purposes.

The Court of Cassation, however, upheld the taxpayer’s appeal, reiterating that the concept of appurtenance, in tax matters, must be derived from Articles 817 and 818 of the Italian Civil Code and requires a concrete assessment of the functional relationship between the assets.

According to the Court, what is relevant is the existence of a lasting destination of the ancillary asset to the service or ornament of the main asset. From this perspective, geographical distance is only one of the elements to be considered and cannot be decisive if assessed in isolation.

The order emphasises that the assessment of the appurtenant nature of the asset must be based on an overall evaluation of the case, taking into account:

• the actual function of the asset;
• the manner in which it is used;
• its functional complementarity;
• the owner’s intention, provided that it can be inferred from objective elements;
• the economic and social relationship between the assets.

The Supreme Court also referred to its most recent case law, already expressed in relation to ICI and IMU, according to which even a significant physical distance may be compatible with the existence of an appurtenant link where an actual functional relationship between the assets emerges.

Particularly relevant is the principle affirmed by the Court according to which, in matters of registration tax, the classification of an asset as an appurtenance cannot be based on merely formal or cadastral criteria, but requires a substantive approach consistent with civil law rules.

The decision is of practical importance especially in real estate transactions concerning land, garages, storage units or ancillary areas that are not immediately adjacent to the main residence, in respect of which the Tax Administration frequently tends to rely primarily on the spatial element.

From a prudential perspective, however, the order confirms that the appurtenant nature of an asset cannot simply be declared by the parties in the notarial deed, but must be supported by concrete and objectively verifiable elements capable of demonstrating the functional connection between the assets.

The Court of Cassation therefore does not exclude that distance may be relevant, but clarifies that it is only one of the factors to be assessed and not an element that automatically prevents the application of the favourable tax regime.