The Supreme Court protects sports sponsorships: the tax authorities cannot deny the deduction simply because the expense seems too high relative to turnover. However, this protection only holds if the company can prove that the advertising actually took place.
The company logo on the local football team’s jerseys, on the courtside banners at the arena, or on the youth team’s uniforms. For many entrepreneurs, it is the most natural way to gain local visibility while giving something back to the community. For the tax authorities, it has long been an easy target, challenged with a recurring argument: you spent too much compared to your turnover. With Ordinance No. 27688 of October 23, 2026, the Court of Cassation has removed the legal basis for that challenge.
The principle affirmed by the Court
This scenario repeats in many audits. A company had supported several amateur sports entities, and the Italian Revenue Agency had denied the deduction, deeming those sums excessive relative to the volume of business and declared income; the appellate judges had confirmed this. The Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that when the legal conditions are met, an absolute legal presumption of inherence and congruity of the expense applies. The consideration is qualified as an advertising expense, and the cost is fully deductible even if it appears disproportionate and even if it has produced no commercial return.
The consequence is clear: the judgment of a lack of economic rationale, which remains an ordinary tool for tax assessment in other contexts, cannot be used in this matter. Deciding whether and how much to invest in amateur sports rests with the entrepreneur in the exercise of their freedom of economic initiative, and not with the Office or the tax judge who might seek to replace them.
Why the principle remains valid after the sports reform
The Court ruled by applying Art. 90, paragraph 8, of Law 289/2002, in force at the time of the facts. That provision was repealed by the sports reform and transposed, with substantially identical content, into Art. 12, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 36 of February 28, 2021: the principle therefore also applies to today’s sponsorships.
The four conditions of the presumption
The presumption, however, is not generalized: it only applies if four conditions are met simultaneously. The beneficiary must be an amateur sports entity: an amateur sports association or company, currently recognized through registration in the National Register of Amateur Sports Activities (which replaced the old CONI register), or a foundation established by educational institutions or a recognized school sports association. The amount paid must not exceed 200,000 euros per year, a threshold measured at the sponsor’s level. The contract must have an explicit promotional purpose, aimed at promoting the sponsor’s image or products, without requiring any product affinity between the business activity and the sporting activity. Finally, the beneficiary must have actually performed the agreed promotional activity.
Outside this scope, the presumption does not apply, and the ordinary rules of Articles 108 and 109 of the TUIR (Consolidated Law on Income Taxes) return. The portion of the expense exceeding 200,000 euros, or payments to an entity that does not fall within the prescribed categories, remains deductible only if the company demonstrates inherence according to common criteria. Furthermore, it remains exposed to the concrete risk that the Office reclassifies it as a representation expense, deductible only within the limits set for that category.
Where the focus of the audit really shifts
The current battle is fought over the fourth condition. With the path of disproportionate spending closed, audits focus on the more insidious question: was that advertising actually carried out? If the Office provides concrete evidence that casts doubt on the performance, the company must be able to prove that the service was rendered; proof of payment alone is not enough. Litigation experience shows that when non-existent or oversized advertising services are challenged, the difference is made by photographs of trademarks on jerseys, banners, and facilities, along with proof that the teams actually play in the championships for which visibility was agreed.
The flip side of the coin
It must be clarified, however, that the protection is not absolute in the common sense of the term. The presumption covers inherence and congruity, not the existence of the service: it is a safeguard on ‘how much’, not on ‘if’. A regular contract, a tracked bank transfer, and an invoice can coexist with an operation that left no trace on the field, and in that case, no regulation defends the deduction. The orientation qualifying the presumption as absolute is currently prevalent in the Supreme Court, but its stability is measured on a case-by-case basis: it only takes one of the four conditions to be contestable for the entire protection to fail. Anyone building their position on this orientation must know this before, not after, the tax assessment notice.
What to do in practice
The defense is built when the contract is signed, not when the audit arrives. A written contract is needed that precisely describes the counter-performance: the logo on uniforms and technical equipment, courtside signage, presence on the entity’s social media channels, and mentions during events, specifying the season and competitions involved. The beneficiary’s registration in the Register must be verified before signing and not taken for granted, as it is a constitutive requirement and not a mere formality. Payments must be made using traceable methods. Throughout the duration of the relationship, documentation of the visibility actually obtained must be preserved: dated photographs of matches and facilities, copies of published materials, screenshots of online channels, and official championship calendars.
This is a modest archiving task compared to the amount it protects. Without it, the presumption provided by law remains a solid defense against the wrong challenge, but useless against the one the tax authorities have now learned to formulate.
