A ruling by the Rimini Tax Justice Court has overturned the approach followed until now on the tax treatment of San Marino pensions received by residents of Italy. The case was reported by Fixing, in an article by Daniele Bartolucci, which reconstructs the decision with input from Giovanni Benaglia of the Rimini-based law firm Grassi, Benaglia, Moretti.
At the heart of the matter is ruling no. 178/2026, issued on 20 July and filed on 4 August, in which the judges established that an Italian resident receiving a pension from San Marino that does not fall under social security must pay taxes in Italy and cannot use a tax credit to recover the amounts withheld on the Titano.
“This principle,” Benaglia explains to Fixing, “completely overturns the settled case law of the Rimini Tax Justice Court,” which until now had upheld taxpayers’ appeals by treating ordinary San Marino pensions as falling within the broader category of social security pensions.
The decisive point is precisely the definition of “social security” contained in Article 18 of the Convention against double taxation between Italy and San Marino. The Italian Revenue Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate) argues that old-age or seniority pensions accrued through contributions must be taxed exclusively in Italy when the beneficiary resides there.
The Rimini ruling also cites recent decisions by the Court of Cassation, according to which social security benefits are those linked to specific conditions of need, rather than to the accumulation of contributions during a person’s working life. This is the basis for the distinction from ordinary pensions accrued after the end of employment.
There is also the matter of sums already withheld in San Marino. According to Fixing’s reconstruction, the judge did not recognize a tax credit in Italy, holding that in this case the San Marino withholding tax had been applied in a manner inconsistent with the Convention.
To recover those sums, Benaglia explains, the pensioner would therefore need to submit a refund request in San Marino and could request activation of the mutual agreement procedure provided for under Article 25 of the Convention.
The ruling thus marks a shift in first-instance case law in Rimini, following previous decisions favorable to former cross-border workers, though it does not settle the broader interpretive debate. “There is great confusion under the heavens,” Benaglia observes in the interview with Fixing, “and it stems from the different interpretations that Italy and San Marino give to the term ‘social security’.”
According to the expert, the issue will need to be addressed directly by the two states, working toward a shared interpretation of the Convention capable of providing greater certainty to pensioners residing in Italy who receive a pension from San Marino.
