Single compendium and successions

The inheritance system by essentially protecting the interests of the family leads to the splitting of property in inheritance division.

The legislature has dictated special “agrarian succession” rules, providing for the nullity of splits, even mortis causa, of the so-called “single compendium,” and stipulating, that if in the ten years from the constitution of the compendium “the assets available in the estate do not allow the satisfaction of all heirs in accordance with the provisions of the law on succession or the predecessor in title, the compendium shall be assigned to the heir who requests it, with the surplus being charged.

In favor of the other heirs arises a claim of currency secured by a mortgage on the land that has fallen into probate, to be paid within two years of its opening at an interest rate one point lower than the legal rate.”

If none of the heirs apply for the allotment of the compendium, the rights to community and national aid allocated to the deceased entrepreneur for the land subject to the succession are revoked.

It seems that the legislature, in providing for the assignment of the estate to the heir who requests it, intended to give preference to the individual management of the enterprise by excluding a priori the possibility that more than one heir may request the assignment of the estate.

Notwithstanding the letter of the law, it is preferable to consider it permissible to establish an agricultural corporation among the heirs into which the entire estate is to be vested.

The royal indivisibility lien that prevents splitting as a result of transfers either by cause of death or by deed between living persons, persists even after the death of its holder, and is transmitted to the heir, who by succeeding to the de cuius without a break, takes advantage of the period of time already elapsed in the hands of his or her predecessor.

More problematic is the case in which none of the heirs apply for the preferential allocation as they do not intend to continue cultivating or conducting the land constituted as a compendium: in this case, the rule only contemplates the revocation of the rights to EU and national aid allocated to the deceased entrepreneur.

In view of the real nature of the indivisibility bond, it is to be assumed that the same remains unchanged until its expiration, while with regard to the failure to comply with the commitment to cultivate or conduct the estate, no forfeiture of the tax benefits granted can be invoked, since, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Art. 7 of L. no. 604/1954 et seq. amendments and additions the only cases in which the direct cultivator is disqualified from tax benefits are voluntary alienation of the land and termination of “direct cultivation.” The event of death is not expected.

From the above, it can be inferred that forfeiture of tax benefits is mostly a penalty imposed by the legislature for the taxpayer’s misbehavior in failing to fulfill his or her commitments, behavior that obviously cannot be found in the death event.

In addition, it should be borne in mind that the heir applying for the allotment does not necessarily have to be a direct grower or professional farmer, as he or she may acquire this status at a later date.

Lastly, it is necessary to examine the case concerning the will that contains a violation of the prohibition against splitting the estate. Regarding this circumstance, it is emphasized that it will need to be checked on a case-by-case basis, whether the individual provision invalidates the entire will or invalidates only the provision that provides for the split itself.

Attorney Chiara Roncarolo

Attorney Maurizio Randazzo