In the days following the deadline for the first installment, we received numerous inquiries from businesses convinced they had lost the facilitated settlement. This is an understandable belief, because it is exactly what would have happened until last year. But that is no longer the case, and the difference deserves to be explained with precision, especially since it has not yet received the attention its practical significance warrants. All the more so now that the September 30, 2026 deadline is approaching.
Moving beyond the automatic forfeiture rule
Article 1, paragraph 95, of Law No. 199/2025 has abandoned the criterion that tied loss of the benefit to a single default. Today, the settlement becomes ineffective only in three cases: failure to pay, or insufficient payment of, the single installment for those who chose lump-sum payment; failure to pay, or insufficient payment of, two installments, even if non-consecutive, for those who opted for installment payment; or failure to pay the final installment of the plan.
The five-day grace period, reintroduced during the conversion of the tax decree (Decree-Law No. 38/2026, converted by Law No. 88/2026), applies only to the first and third cases. It does not cover the first installment or the intermediate installments of the payment plan.
A clear consequence follows: those who opted for installment payment and did not pay by July 31, 2026 have not forfeited the benefit. They have an outstanding installment, which remains fully due, but the settlement retains its effect.
The break from the quater
The significance of this provision becomes clear when compared with the previous edition. Under Law No. 197/2022, the five-day grace period applied across the board, but once that threshold was exceeded, a single unpaid installment was enough to void the entire plan, reinstating the original debt in full, including penalties and late-payment interest. A payment delayed by just one week could wipe out years of regular payments.
The replacement of the automatic forfeiture rule with a quantitative threshold is not an isolated choice. It mirrors the logic already adopted by Legislative Decree No. 110/2024 in reforming the collection system, which also ties forfeiture of the ordinary installment plan under Article 19 of Presidential Decree No. 602/1973 to a minimum number of defaults. It is a systemic acknowledgment that, in long-term plans, absolute punctuality is not a realistic expectation, and that automatic forfeiture generates disputes without producing revenue.
One proportional point should not be overlooked: two installments out of a plan that can run to as many as fifty-four two-month installments represent a significantly stricter threshold than the one provided for the ordinary installment plan. The flexibility exists, but it is concentrated at the start and is quickly exhausted.
Where the reassuring message must stop
The Italian Revenue Agency – Collection (AdER) has clarified that each payment is automatically allocated to the oldest outstanding installment. A debtor who misses the first installment but then pays all subsequent ones on time does not progressively resolve their position: the exposure shifts along the entire plan, until the final installment ends up formally unpaid. And failure to pay the final installment constitutes an independent ground for forfeiture.
The paradox is clear. A plan apparently honored in full for its entire duration can become ineffective at the final deadline, as a result of an initial default that was never actually made up.
What is really at stake
Forfeiture results in full reinstatement of the original debt, reclassification of payments already made as mere advances on the total debt, resumption of the statute of limitations and forfeiture periods, and the commencement or continuation of precautionary and enforcement measures.
Of decisive importance for financial planning is Article 1, paragraph 94, of Law No. 199/2025, which bars any subsequent ordinary installment plan for debts that have lapsed. At present, there is no residual rescheduling mechanism: a business that defaults in 2029 will find itself worse off than one that never applied for the settlement in the first place, having lost the safety net on which it had built its financial sustainability.
Two practical recommendations
The first concerns those already in arrears: payment should be made by September 30, 2026, together with the next installment, without relying on any remaining margin. If the first installment was missed, that margin has already been fully used up, and any further unpaid installment will render the settlement ineffective.
The second concerns business entities. The installment burden factors into the assessment of debt sustainability over the following twelve months and into the imbalance indicators relevant under Article 3 of the Business Crisis and Insolvency Code. Opting for the facilitated settlement does not ease the duties of the management body: it extends their monitoring horizon to cover the entire duration of the plan.
A margin to be managed, not used up
The rottamazione-quinquies grants a margin that previous editions did not offer. It does not grant a second chance.
The gap between these two statements plays out at the operational level: in correctly reconstructing how installments have been allocated, in verifying the position with the Collection Agent before the shift becomes irreversible, and in aligning the settlement plan with the company’s financial planning. This is an area where the tax and corporate dimensions cannot be considered separately, because the installment burden that appears sustainable today is the same one that tomorrow will factor into the imbalance indicators relevant to adequate organizational structures.
Studio Santoro & Partners assists businesses and professionals in reviewing their positions under the facilitated settlement, reconstructing how payments have been allocated, and assessing the effects of the installment plan on the company’s financial sustainability.
Contact us to have your position reviewed before the September 30, 2026 deadline.
Avv. Andrea Santoro — Studio Legale e Tributario Santoro, Via Salaria 290, 00199 Rome
