The sentence of the Court of Cassation n. 21270 of 7 August 2008 took a position - in a restrictive sense - on the tax treatment to be reserved for the expenses incurred by pharmaceutical companies to host doctors, on the occasion of the so-called mini-meetings and congress events. In particular, the judges established that the special regime, provided for by article 19, paragraph 14 of law 67/1988, in force for that dispute, does not apply to these income components. In the opinion of the writer, the rulings of the Court must be contextualised, as the reference regulatory framework has undergone radical changes since 1997 and, precisely for this reason, it cannot be attributed a current value. Of this, moreover, more than one confirmation is found in the pronouncements of the tax authorities. The judgment of the Court. With regard to the 1992 tax period, the Guardia di Finanza contested the deduction from the Irpeg taxable income of the expenses incurred "to host lunch or dinner in restaurants with doctors attending information-scientific meetings", held by the pharmaceutical company being audited in order to "disseminate and illustrate the characteristics, qualities and therapeutic applications of the marketed drugs", and the "expenditure for the participation of external doctors and for the contribution ... to conferences promoted and organized by third parties". According to the ascertaining body, these negative elements of income had to be classified as entertainment expenses and, therefore, be deducted from the taxable amount only for a part, divided over several years. The company under investigation, however, had considered - among other things - that the case was regulated by the aforementioned article 19, paragraph 14, of law 67/1988. This provision provided that the expenses incurred by medicines companies to promote and organize congresses, conventions and trips connected to them, were deductible (in full, at the time, now at 20%), for the purpose of determining business income, provided that the same had purposes of significant scientific interest with the exclusion of advertising purposes. Since this was broadly the context in which the disputed question hinged, the Supreme Court held that this rule, specific to pharmaceutical congresses, was inapplicable to the expenses of "participation" in the event (such as those of hospitality of the subjects who had attended). According to the Court, in fact, the provision refers only to those incurred by companies in the sector to "promote" and "organise" the said events, which do not include expenses "aimed only at encouraging the participation of congressmen and/or conventioneers". According to the Court of Cassation, the latter therefore remain subject to the unfavorable tax treatment provided for by the common legislation for entertainment expenses. Critical remarks. Article 36, paragraph 13, of law 449/1997 has in reality profoundly changed the treatment of congressional expenses for pharmaceutical companies, bringing back to the scope of the aforementioned article 19 "the advertising of medicines in any case carried out by pharmaceutical companies through conferences and congresses", pursuant to Legislative Decree 541/1992 (now replaced by Legislative Decree 219/2006). In this context, the principle was also clearly explained according to which the possibility of deducting the expenses in question is subject to the company obtaining the prescribed ministerial authorization to participate in the event, according to the forms of the law. From this moment, therefore, there has been a perfect overlap regarding the scope of applicability of the public-health legislation and the fiscal one. de
