I LIMITI INTERNI DELLA GIURISDIZIONE TRIBUTARIA

The term jurisdiction means the effective application of the law to a specific case. Apart from the ordinary jurisdiction, civil and criminal, which finds its limit only in special courts, the object of the other is generally bounded by the outside matters on which the court can decide. Some jurisdictions, then, they also have limits "internal" that define which enti-ties are and how to access the jurisdiction, in respect of which the court may rule. Re-garding the tax jurisdiction, perhaps the most lucid analysis, as regards the internal lim-its, in doctrine, is that of Russo. To understand the reasons for the existence of the same tax jurisdiction and its current limits, you need a historical overview, outlined in the first two chapters, and the first is exposed briefly the evolution of tax jurisdiction Rattazzi from the Decrees of 1859, until the entry implementation of the Constitution and the reform of 1972. In the second, which brings us to current events, will be examined briefly the regulatory changes that led to the reorganization of 1992 and subsequent amendments made to it by assigning the Tax Commission of cognition of disputes concerning all the tributes, bringing forward made the creation of the single tax jurisdiction. In the third chapter discusses the various aspects of the first internal limits: the subjective. In particular, it examines the impacts on the extent of tax jurisdiction to the categories of parties in the process, the joinder active, especially with regard to the join-der between the Tax Office and dealer of the collection, the joinder passive in relation to the solidarity tax, and its whether or not, the joinder optional and whether or not the class action. The other internal limit, the system of challengeable acts, is treated in chapter four. Were examined only those cases of greatest interest, both for their relevance, both for the controversial court decisions (and doctrinal) which resulted. In particular, the is-sues were discussed in relation to appeals against acts of the collection is not listed, the documents concerning the exercise of the power of self-defense, responses to such diffi-culties. Overall, it highlights the need for a contextual reading of the rule that defines the object of tax jurisdiction, the one that lists the acts open to challenge, and one that determines the parts of the judgment. On the one hand the number of parts in the tax process has been greatly extended with the attribution to the Commissions also in disputes concerning local taxes and customs and on the other the listing of challengeable acts cannot be considered exhaustive in the strict sense, since the legislative changes made to the definition of the object of tax jurisdiction, they indirectly also affect the system of challengeable acts and consequently the internal limits of tax jurisdiction. On the one hand the number of parts in the tax process has been greatly extended with the attribution to the Commissions also in disputes concerning local taxes and customs and on the other the listing of challengeable acts can not be considered exhaustive in the strict sense, since the legislative changes made to the definition of the object of tax jurisdiction, they indirectly also affect the system of challengeable acts and consequently the internal limits of tax jurisdiction. The guidance in this respect the case law of the Supreme Court, it is entirely ac-ceptable, though perhaps the time is ripe for a reorganization and simplification of the thicket of legal documents necessary for the assessment and collection of taxes.