The IMU has been for years one of the most discussed and feared taxes by Italian taxpayers.
It is paid on property ownership and is a fundamental income for Municipalities, but there is one important exception: the main residence is exempt. The problem is that it is not always clear when a property can actually be considered as such.
In recent months the Court of Cassation has issued some decisive decisions, clarifying once and for all what a main residence means and above all in which specific situations the taxpayer is entitled to the exemption. There are more cases than you might think, and many citizens may find themselves paying tax they don’t owe.
What the law says (and how the Supreme Court interprets it today)
The rule states that to obtain the IMU exemption it is necessary that the taxpayer legally resides in the property and ordinarily lives there. These two requirements must coexist. The SC, however, clarified with decision 7745/2026 that only the declared residence is not enough: what counts above all is the habitual residence, understood as the place where the person actually and permanently lives.
This second requirement is assessed on two levels: an objective one, i.e. the actual stay in the property for a significant period of time, and a subjective one, i.e. the desire to consider this house as the center of one’s life. We don’t just look at everyday physical presence, but also family relationships, social life, habits and work needs.
It should also be noted that the exception does not apply in any case: luxury residences classified in cadastral categories A/1, A/8 and A/9, such as villas, castles and buildings of historical value, are excluded. For all other properties, however, the assessment is specific and flexible.
Working away from home, family members at home, part-tenancy: when the exemption remains in place
One of the most important clarifications concerns those who live away from home for work: the Court of Cassation has also recognized an exemption for those who work for approximately ten months of the year in a municipality that is almost 200 kilometers from home.
The decisive criterion is that this property remains the focus of the taxpayer’s personal and family interests. Similarly, the fact that a family member, such as a sibling or parent, also lives in the home does not invalidate the right to exemption. Another relevant case concerns partial renting: according to the guidance consolidated by decision 8236/2026, renting part of your home does not automatically lead to the loss of the tax benefit, as long as the owner continues to reside and live there habitually.
This is an interpretation that goes beyond a bureaucratic and rigid approach, enhancing the concrete reality of the taxpayer’s life. The fixed point remains only one: the home must be and remain the true center of the life of those who occupy it, regardless of external conditions.
