Hubbry Logo
Eight per thousandEight per thousandMain
Open search
Eight per thousand
Community hub
Eight per thousand
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Eight per thousand
Eight per thousand
Eight per thousand
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Eight per thousand (Italian: otto per mille) is an Italian law under which Italian taxpayers devolve a compulsory 8 ‰ = 0.8% (eight per mille, i.e. per thousand) from their annual income tax return to an organised religion recognised by Italy or, alternatively, to a state-run social assistance scheme.[1]

On the IRE form, people optionally declare a recipient. If they do not, the law stipulates that this undeclared amount be distributed among the normal recipients of such taxes in proportion to what they have already received from explicit declarations. In the period from 1990 to 2007, 42.7% expressed a choice, on average.

A similar scheme has been introduced in 2006 to fund entities that carry out socially relevant activities (for example, non-profit, scientific research) with five per thousand (5 ‰).

History

[edit]

The relations between Italy and the religious confessions in its territory can be traced back to the Statuto Albertino of 1848, which applied first to the Kingdom of Sardinia and then to the Kingdom of Italy. Its first article declared the "Roman Catholic Apostolic religion" the only state religion and granted legal toleration to all other religious confessions then present.[2]

Under the Lateran treaties of 1929, which were incorporated in the 1948 Constitution of the Italian Republic, the State paid a small monthly salary, called the congrua, to Catholic clergymen as compensation for the nationalization of Church properties at the time of the unification of Italy. This ended on 31 December 1986, with the entry into force, as a result of a 1984 agreement between the government and the Holy See of the "eight per thousand" system.

Current status

[edit]

As of 2020 there are 14 possible beneficiaries of the tax:

In addition an agreement has been signed with the Jehovah's Witnesses,[16] but it has not yet received parliamentary ratification.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in spite of having made an agreement on 4 April 2007, ratified by Law 127 of 30 July 2012, is refusing to participate in the division of the funds.

At present it is not possible to designate an Islamic organization, despite Italy's population of over 1.4 million Muslims.[17] Issues cited include a lack of a single central authority for the religion,[18] concerns over Islamist extremist organizations being the recipients of funds, and Muslim beliefs on polygamy, education and women's rights that potentially contradict the Constitution.[19][20]

Utilisation

[edit]

Although the 1985 law on the matter declared that the state's portion of the proceeds was to be devoted to extraordinary expenses, such as world hunger, natural disasters and refugees, since 2004 a large proportion is employed for general purposes. In 2004, €80 million out of a total of about €100 million were thus employed, leading to criticism of the fact that part of it was used to finance the Italian military mission in Iraq.[21][22] Because of its financial situation in 2011, the government decided to utilize the entire sum of about €145 million for purposes other than those indicated in the 1985 law: for instance, €57,277,063 were spent on improving the prison infrastructure.[23]

The purposes for which the religious groups may use their portions are laid down in the agreements entered into with the government. In the case of the Catholic Church, the purposes are specified in article 48 of the 1985 law: "worship needs of the people, support of the clergy, charitable activities in favour of Italian society and the Third World". Each year the Italian Episcopal Conference publishes the proportions it assigns under various headings. Thus at its meeting in May 2012 it approved the following distribution (in thousands of euros):[24]

  • 1,148,076 Total amount received (100.0%)
  • 479,226 Worship and pastoral work (41.7%)
    • 156,000 To the dioceses (for worship and pastoral work) (13.6%)
    • 190,000 Buildings for worship (16.5%)
      • 125,000 New buildings for worship (10.9%)
      • 65,000 Safeguarding cultural property of the Church (5.7%)
    • 64,226 Fund for catechesis and Christian education (5.6%)
    • 12,000 Regional ecclesiastical tribunals (1.0%)
    • 57,000 Needs of national importance (5.0%)
  • 255,000 Charitable activities (22.2%)
    • 125,000 To the dioceses (for charity) (10.9%)
    • 85,000 Third World (7.4%)
    • 45,000 Needs of national importance (3.9%)
  • 363,850 Financial support of the clergy (31.7%)
  • 50,000 Reserve for future use for worship, pastoral work and charity (4.4%)

The financial support for the clergy brings their salary up to a certain level, such as €852.93 a month for a priest at the beginning of his service, and €1,308.57 a month for a bishop at the maximum of his biennial increments (2007 figures).[25][26]

Choices expressed by taxpayers

[edit]

For the first fifteen years of the system there was a gradual increase of the percentage of those who chose their contributions to go to the Catholic Church and a corresponding diminution of those who chose the State as beneficiary. Of those who exercised a choice, 76.17% opted for the Catholic Church in 1990, increasing to 89.81% in 2004 and falling to 86.05% in 2006 and 85.01% in 2007.[27] Since in 2007, for instance, only 43.50% of those who declared their incomes expressed a choice, those who did indicate the Catholic Church as beneficiary were less than 37% of the taxpayers, a figure much lower than the proportion of Italians who declare themselves Catholics, which corresponded rather to the proportion opting for the Church among those who did indicate a choice.[28] Declarations in favour of the State, which were 22.31% in 1990, dropped to their lowest ever level of 7.60% in 2005, recovering later and reaching 11.95% in 2007.

The eight-per-thousand tax has significantly helped the Piedmontese Waldensians, a Protestant community whose origins predate the Reformation, the Waldensians have only about 25,000 enlisted members but about 412,000 Italians support them and their charitable works.[29]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Eight per thousand

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The eight per thousand (Italian: otto per mille) is a mechanism within Italy's personal income tax (IRPEF) system whereby individual taxpayers may designate 0.8% of their tax liability to a state-recognized religious confession for its activities or to the Italian state itself for social welfare and humanitarian aid programs. Enacted through the 1984 revision of the 1929 Concordat between Italy and the Holy See, the system formalized state support for religious entities by channeling funds derived from unchosen or proportionally allocated shares, with the Catholic Church historically receiving the predominant portion—typically over 80% of total collections—due to its extensive voter base and the mechanics of default distribution among opting groups. In practice, explicit designations occur in only about 30-40% of returns, prompting proportional reallocation of the remainder based on expressed preferences, which amplifies the influence of participating denominations and has sustained annual inflows exceeding €1 billion for the Catholic Church until recent fiscal adjustments. The framework has faced scrutiny and disputes, particularly in 2024-2025, when government delays in disbursements and proposed tax reforms reduced Catholic allocations below €1 billion for the first time, eliciting criticism from Church leaders over perceived unilateral state encroachments on bilateral agreements.

Origins in the Concordat

The eight per thousand (otto per mille) system traces its origins to the 1984 revision of the 1929 between the Kingdom of Italy and the , which had previously mandated direct state subsidies for Catholic clergy stipends known as the congrua, funded through general taxation including the imposta sul reddito di ricchezza mobile. These subsidies, continued under the despite the 1948 Constitution's emphasis on state laity and religious equality, became incompatible with evolving secular principles and were renegotiated to eliminate automatic state appropriations. Negotiations for revision began in October 1976 under Prime Minister and culminated in the Agreement signed on February 18, 1984, at in Rome by Italian Prime Minister and Secretary of State Cardinal . This accord formally ended the Catholic Church's status as Italy's —previously enshrined in Article 1 of the 1929 —and shifted ecclesiastical funding from direct budgetary allocations to a voluntary taxpayer-directed mechanism, reflecting the 's acceptance of separation from state control while preserving financial support. Central to these origins is Article 47 of the 1984 Agreement, which instituted the eight per thousand as 0.8% of personal income tax (IRPEF) to be allocated starting in 1990: taxpayers could designate shares to the Catholic Church or the state for social purposes, with unexpressed choices distributed proportionally among entitled entities based on expressed preferences. Transitional provisions in Articles 50 and 51 maintained interim payments to the Italian Episcopal Conference—increasing 5% annually from 1987 to 1989—and allocated fixed annual sums (3,500 million lire) to a fund for worship buildings, while abolishing prior clergy subsidy decrees from 1985 onward, ensuring continuity until the new system's full rollout. The Agreement was ratified by Italian Law No. 121 on March 25, 1985, with the otto per mille mechanism detailed and enacted via Law No. 222 on May 20, 1985, initially applying solely to the and state before legislative extensions to other religious confessions via subsequent intese. This framework addressed fiscal equity by tying Church funding to taxpayer consent rather than compulsion, though proportional default allocation has sustained substantial Catholic receipts despite low explicit choice rates (historically around 30-40%). The Accordo di Villa Madama, signed on February 18, 1984, between the Italian Republic and the , revised the 1929 Lateran Concordat and Pacts, marking a shift from direct state funding of Catholic clergy salaries (congrua) and worship expenses to a voluntary taxpayer allocation system. This agreement, negotiated under Prime Minister and , abolished obligatory in public schools and ended the Church's role in civil marriage recognition, while introducing the otto per mille mechanism as compensation for lost revenues. Under the new terms, the Italian state committed to allocating 0.8% of personal income tax (IRPEF) revenues, with taxpayers able to designate funds to the ; undesignated portions would be proportionally distributed based on expressed choices. The agreement's provisions on otto per mille were implemented through Italian Law No. 222 of May 20, 1985, which detailed the operational framework, including taxpayer choice via returns and default proportional allocation for non-choosers. Article 47 of this established the mechanism effective from tax year 1985, with full enforcement starting January 1, 1987, following parliamentary ratification of the 1984 revisions via Law No. 121 of March 25, 1985. The system initially prioritized the but included provisions for extension to other religious denominations through state agreements (intese), ensuring equitable participation once formalized. Legal extensions broadened the otto per mille to non-Catholic entities via subsequent intese under Article 8 of the Italian Constitution. Early inclusions encompassed Protestant groups like the Waldensian Evangelical Church and Baptist Union, formalized in 1984 and 1993 agreements, respectively, allowing them shares proportional to taxpayer designations. Further expansions occurred through laws such as No. 326 of 1995 for Jewish communities and Adventists, and more recent intese with Assemblies of God (2006), Orthodox groups, and the Italian Buddhist Union (2012), integrating them into the distribution pool upon state approval. These extensions maintained the core 1984 framework, requiring recipient organizations to report fund usage for worship, clergy support, or social aid, while prohibiting political or unrelated expenditures.

Key Legislative Amendments

The primary legislative framework for the otto per mille system was enacted through articles 47 to 49 of Law No. 222 of 20 May 1985, which implemented the 1984 revision of the Lateran Concordat by establishing the mechanism for allocating 0.8% of revenue based on taxpayer designations or proportional distribution of unallocated shares. Subsequent amendments have primarily targeted the procedures for utilizing the state-managed quota, enhancing administrative efficiency, and specifying eligible expenditures, often in response to evolving fiscal and social priorities. A foundational regulatory amendment came via Decree of the (DPR) No. 76 of 10 1998, which defined detailed criteria and procedures for the direct state utilization of its otto per mille share, emphasizing social assistance, , and conservation of artistic heritage while mandating project-based allocation and reporting requirements. This regulation addressed initial implementation gaps by introducing formalized selection processes for funding recipients, such as non-profits and local entities, and has been iteratively updated to incorporate digital tools for application and oversight. Further refinements occurred through Law No. 147 of 27 December 2013 (Stability Law 2014), which explicitly authorized the expenditure of accumulated state otto per mille funds for infrastructure projects, including school renovations and environmental interventions, thereby expanding permissible uses beyond immediate social aid to long-term public investments totaling hundreds of millions of euros annually. In 2019, Law No. 157 introduced procedural enhancements to the management of IRPEF otto per mille funds, refining allocation rules for both state and confessional shares to improve transparency and prevent misuse, including stricter audits on fund destinations. More recent changes include Article 8 of Decree-Law No. 105 of 10 August 2023, converted into law, which modified Article 48 of Law No. 222/1985 to streamline state quota distribution by prioritizing emergency responses and digital platforms for project submissions, aiming to accelerate fund deployment amid fiscal pressures. Building on this, DPR No. 213 of 14 November 2024 revised access requirements for state-funded projects, introducing simplified eligibility criteria, enhanced evaluation metrics for proposals, and mandatory use of an online informatics platform to reduce administrative burdens and improve selection objectivity for social and humanitarian initiatives. These updates have drawn criticism from the Italian Bishops' Conference for potentially limiting indirect benefits to religious-affiliated social services within the state quota, though they maintain the core proportional and direct allocation principles without altering taxpayer choice mechanisms.

Operational Mechanism

Taxpayer Choice Process

Italian taxpayers subject to IRPEF (Imposta sul Reddito delle Persone Fisiche) express their preference for the eight per thousand allocation as part of the annual income tax declaration process, which covers income from the prior year. Those required to file, typically using Modello 730 or Modello Redditi PF, complete the dedicated "Scheda per le scelte della destinazione dell'8, 5 e 2 per mille dell'Irpef" section within the form. To direct funds to the State—for purposes including social solidarity, assistance to developing countries, preservation, and —taxpayers sign the designated box for "Stato". For a religious institution, which must be a with an intesa (agreement) under Article 8 of the Italian Constitution, taxpayers either sign a specific box (e.g., for the ) or enter the entity's codice fiscale (tax code) from the Agenzia delle Entrate's official list of eligible beneficiaries. Taxpayers exempt from filing a full declaration, such as certain employees or retirees with withheld taxes covering their liability, can still participate using a standalone scheda form, often attached to their Certificazione Unica (CU) or downloadable from the Agenzia delle Entrate portal. This form is submitted by the standard declaration deadline (typically late for Modello 730 filers in the year following the income year) via , authorized intermediaries like CAF centers, or electronically through the agency's reserved online area with SPID, CIE, or CNS credentials. The choice applies solely to the IRPEF portion declared for that filing period and does not alter liability; unexpressed preferences lead to proportional redistribution based on aggregate taxpayer selections.

Default Proportional Allocation

If a fails to designate a recipient for the otto per mille portion of their IRPEF (), that 0.8% quota is not retained by the state or returned but is instead redistributed proportionally among the entities selected by those who did express a choice. This mechanism, outlined in Article 48 of Law 222/1985, ensures the entire national pool of otto per mille funds is allocated without remainder, with non-expressed portions amplifying the shares of chosen recipients based on the aggregate expressed preferences. The proportional allocation favors entities with higher numbers of explicit designations, as the non-expressed funds—typically comprising 50-60% of total contributions—are divided according to the relative percentages of expressed choices across all eligible religious confessions and the state. For instance, if the receives 80% of expressed choices, it would also receive 80% of the non-expressed pool, effectively concentrating resources toward popular selections while maintaining the system's universality. This design, intended to encourage participation without mandating it, has persisted since the 1985 reforms, with the Italian Revenue Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate) computing distributions annually based on declaration data from the prior . Administrative implementation involves aggregating all IRPEF declarations, tallying expressed designations, and prorating the non-designated total accordingly before disbursing funds to recipients. Non-participation thus indirectly supports the prevailing distribution patterns, which have historically skewed toward the due to its dominant share of choices (around 30-40% of expressed totals in recent years), alongside smaller allocations to Protestant groups, other confessions, and state social programs. Critics argue this creates a for established religions, as low-awareness or apathetic taxpayers bolster major recipients without intent, though proponents view it as a pragmatic way to fund public goods from untapped revenue.

Administrative Distribution

The administrative distribution of the eight per thousand (otto per mille) funds begins with the collection of taxpayer choices by the Agenzia delle Entrate through annual declarations, such as the Modello 730 or Redditi PF, where contributors indicate their preferred beneficiary among recognized religious confessions or the state. The agency aggregates these choices, including non-expressed ones allocated proportionally to expressed preferences as mandated by Article 47 of Law 222/1985. The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), via its Dipartimento delle Finanze, then computes the total allocatable amount—0.8% of the IRPEF revenue for the relevant tax year—and determines each beneficiary's share based on the proportion of choices received, typically finalizing calculations by late in the following year. For instance, distributions for choices expressed in 2022 declarations were calculated and reported in 2024, reflecting a two-year lag to allow for declaration processing and revenue finalization. Funds allocated to religious confessions are transferred directly to their central representative bodies under intese (agreements) with the state, such as the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana for the , which then disburses to dioceses or institutions per internal protocols; payments occur in one or more installments as specified in the agreements, with 2024 disbursements totaling specified amounts based on prior-year choices. The state's share, designated for social and humanitarian purposes, follows a distinct procedure managed by the Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri through the Dipartimento per il Coordinamento Amministrativo (DICA): ministries, regions, and local entities submit project proposals by deadlines (e.g., for certain cycles), which are evaluated for eligibility under criteria like territorial equity and social impact, with allocations approved by decree and funds disbursed upon verification of compliance. Oversight includes annual reporting by beneficiaries to the MEF on fund usage, ensuring alignment with statutory purposes, though relies on self-certification and audits rather than pre-disbursement verification for religious entities. Delays in distribution can occur due to revenue adjustments or disputes, but the process prioritizes proportionality to maintain fiscal neutrality.

Fund Allocation and Usage

Distribution to Religious Organizations

The eight per thousand portion of IRPEF allocated to religious organizations is distributed by the Italian Ministry of and to the central representative bodies of confessional denominations that have formal agreements (intese) with the state, such as the via the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), the [Waldensian Evangelical Church](/page/Waldensian_Evangelical Church), the Union of Seventh-day Adventist Christian Churches, and the Italian Lutheran Evangelical Church. These entities, numbering about a dozen, receive funds proportional to designations expressed on forms (modelli 730 or Redditi PF), with unchosen portions reallocated proportionally based on the previous year's expressed preferences to incentivize participation. The process ensures direct state transfer without additional taxation, as the mechanism deducts from existing IRPEF revenue rather than imposing a new levy. In the 2024 distribution (reflecting 2020 income declarations), total otto per mille funds reached 1.328 billion euros, with religious organizations receiving the majority based on approximately 35% of taxpayers making explicit choices, supplemented by defaults. The obtained 68.59%, or roughly 911 million euros—the first year below one billion—while the Waldensian Church secured 3.04% (over 40 million euros), reflecting stable but declining Catholic preferences amid rising non-religious designations. Smaller shares went to Adventists (around 0.6%), Lutherans (0.2%), and others like and Buddhists (under 0.2% each).
Religious OrganizationPercentage (2024)Amount (euros, approx.)
68.59%911,000,000
3.04%40,000,000
Seventh-day Adventists0.6%8,000,000
Lutheran Evangelical Church0.2%2,700,000
Once received, funds support denomination-specific activities stipulated in agreements, including religious , maintenance, and social-humanitarian initiatives; for the , the CEI allocates roughly 47% to sustenance, 7% to needs, and 46% to global aid and preservation, with annual decisions made at its . Other groups apply analogous uses, such as community assistance and missionary work, subject to internal rather than state micromanagement, though annual reporting to the finance ministry is required for transparency.

State Usage for Social Assistance

The quota of the otto per mille IRPEF devolved to the Italian state is utilized exclusively for non-confessional interventions of social interest or humanitarian character, as stipulated by law. This direct state management, governed by DPR 10 March 1998, n. 76 (as amended), supports extraordinary projects rather than ongoing public expenditures, with funds allocated through competitive calls for proposals to public administrations, non-profits, and other eligible entities. Taxpayers designating the state may optionally specify a code (e.g., 1 for world hunger aid, 4 for assistance) to direct their share proportionally among similar interventions; unspecified choices are distributed pro-rata across all categories. Primary areas of social assistance include support for refugees and , encompassing accommodation, healthcare provision, and economic subsidies for those granted international protection. Additional categories cover family assistance programs, such as aid for low-income households and child welfare; civil protection initiatives for response; and, following Decree-Law 10 August 2023, n. 105, interventions against addictions, including prevention, treatment, and social-labor reintegration for affected individuals. Funds have also financed humanitarian efforts like world hunger relief through international partnerships and recovery from natural calamities, with recent expansions allowing designation for disaster rebuilding as of 2024 declarations. Allocation occurs via annual decrees from the Presidency of the , specifying eligible interventions and budget limits (e.g., capping administrative costs at defined percentages). For instance, in 2024, resources targeted extraordinary aid in the listed categories, prioritizing third-sector organizations for on-ground implementation while ensuring transparency through project reporting and audits. This usage contrasts with religious entities' allocations, which may include elements, and has drawn for favoring certain non-profits, such as those aiding migrants, though official decrees mandate competitive selection to mitigate favoritism.

Reporting and Oversight Requirements

Religious organizations receiving otto per mille funds are required to submit annual reports detailing aggregate expenditures aligned with the purposes stipulated in their concordats or intese with the Italian state, such as sustenance of , charitable interventions, and of sites for the under Article 44 of Law 222/1985 and implementing DPR 33/1987. These reports, typically provided to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, emphasize compliance with designated categories rather than itemized project audits, with the publishing summarized usage data annually on its dedicated portal. Oversight by state authorities remains limited to verifying broad adherence to agreement terms, without routine financial audits or sanctions for minor deviations, as enforcement relies on potential suspension of future allocations for material non-compliance. In contrast, the portion allocated to direct undergoes stricter project-based reporting, where beneficiaries must submit detailed justificatory documents—including invoices and receipts headed to the recipient or partners—within specified deadlines, often 90 days post-disbursement, as outlined in government guidelines for monitoring. The Dipartimento per il coordinamento amministrativo (DICA) oversees this , conducting verifications to ensure funds support extraordinary interventions like relief or aid, with non-compliance risking repayment demands or ineligibility for future grants. The Corte dei Conti, Italy's Court of Auditors, has repeatedly highlighted deficiencies in overall system transparency, particularly for religious allocations, arguing in its 2018 Deliberation n. 24/2018/G and subsequent reports that inadequate controls and opaque reporting hinder effective parliamentary and taxpayer scrutiny of public funds. Critics within the Court note that while state-managed funds benefit from procedural rigor, religious entities' autonomy—rooted in constitutional protections for religious freedom—results in declarative rather than verificatory mechanisms, prompting calls for enhanced digital disclosure and independent audits to align with public finance standards. No comprehensive unified oversight body exists across recipients, with the Agenzia delle Entrate handling distribution audits but deferring usage verification to recipient-specific protocols.

Total Annual Funds Collected

The otto per mille mechanism allocates 0.8% of the total personal income tax (IRPEF) revenue collected annually by the Italian state, forming a fixed pool distributed based on taxpayer choices or proportional default allocation for unchosen portions. This total yield has hovered between 1.3 and 1.4 billion euros in recent years, closely tracking the stability of IRPEF collections amid economic variations. For the tax declarations processed in 2024 (primarily reflecting 2020-2021 income), the total otto per mille funds amounted to approximately 1.32 billion euros. Official data from the Ministry of Economy and Finance indicate that for the 2022 tax year, the total reached 1.419 billion euros, while for 2023 it was 1.401 billion euros, encompassing both expressed choices and proportional shares from non-expressed ones. These figures represent the gross pool before any adjustments for prior-year settlements or minor fiscal offsets.
Tax YearTotal Funds (€)
20211.400 billion
20221.419 billion
20231.401 billion
The consistency in these amounts stems from IRPEF's role as Italy's primary , generating over 170 billion euros annually in base revenue, with the otto per mille slice insulated from choice participation rates due to mandatory proportional redistribution. Variations year-over-year are minimal, typically under 5%, and align with broader economic indicators like wage growth and employment levels rather than allocation preferences.

Historical Distribution Percentages

The allocation of the eight per thousand (otto per mille) funds from IRPEF is based on the proportions of choices explicitly expressed by taxpayers in their declarations, with unexpressed choices (typically 55-60% of total) distributed proportionally among the expressed preferences, resulting in the final distribution mirroring the expressed percentages applied to the entire pool. Since the system's introduction via Law 222/1985 for income years starting 1985, the (through the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, CEI) has consistently received the predominant share, reflecting its historical cultural dominance in , though this has trended downward amid rising and diversification of choices. Other religious organizations have maintained marginal shares collectively under 6%, while the State has seen a corresponding increase, often directing funds to social welfare, disaster relief, and like school construction. Historical data indicate the Catholic Church's share of expressed choices—and thus of total funds—peaked above 80% in the late 2000s before declining steadily, influenced by factors including public awareness campaigns by non-Catholic entities and shifting demographics. For instance, the Church's allocation fell from 81.1% in 2009 to 76.4% in 2019, continuing to approximately 66-70% by the early 2020s. This decline equates to a loss of over €200 million in real funds for the Church over five years ending around 2025, despite total collections remaining stable near €1.1-1.2 billion annually. The following table summarizes key historical distribution percentages of total funds for major recipients, drawn from official Ministry of Economy and Finance data and analyses:
YearCatholic Church (CEI) %State %Other Religious Organizations %
200981.1~15~3.9
201976.4~20~3.6
202169.5124.635.86
202267.2826.795.93
202366.1627.736.11
Data for earlier periods (1985-2000s) show even higher Church dominance, often exceeding 85%, but detailed breakdowns are less granular in ; the trend of gradual erosion in the Church's monopoly persists due to increased expressions for the State and minorities like (peaking at ~3% in recent years).

Recent Data and Shifts (2019–2025)

Between 2019 and , total collections from the otto per mille portion of IRPEF declined due to economic impacts from the , with lower reported incomes reducing the overall tax base; for income year (distributed in 2025), the total amounted to approximately €618 million. By contrast, collections rebounded sharply post-recovery, reaching €897 million for income year 2022 and €1.477 billion for 2023, reflecting higher IRPEF yields amid economic stabilization and wage growth. Preliminary data for 2024 distributions indicate totals near €1.32 billion, while 2025 allocations exceeded €1.5 billion across prior income years, driven by sustained IRPEF increases. The percentage of taxpayers explicitly expressing a choice remained stable at around 40%, with non-expressed portions (approximately 60%) allocated proportionally to expressed preferences, amplifying the effective shares of major recipients. Explicit choices for the declined modestly from 69.51% in 2021 to 66.16% in 2023, yielding total allocations of €430 million (2021), €624 million (2022), and €1.053 billion (2023), representing 70-71% of overall funds despite the dip. State allocations rose correspondingly, from 24.63% explicit in 2021 (€152 million expressed) to 27.73% in 2023 (€376 million), bolstered by proportional gains from non-choices; other religious entities captured 5-6%, totaling €36-85 million annually in this period.
Income YearTotal Gettito (€) (€ / %)State (€ / Explicit %)Other Religions (€ / %)
2021618,075,391429,621,479 / 69.51152,237,389 / 24.6336,216,523 / 5.86
2022897,186,662623,630,493 / 67.28223,667,558 / 26.7949,888,611 / 5.93
20231,476,964,7591,053,251,972 / 66.16375,904,946 / 27.7384,807,841 / 6.11
This shift toward higher state shares in explicit choices contributed to the receiving under €1 billion in net funds for the first time in certain distributions by 2024, amid broader trends of and targeted taxpayer campaigns. Overall, the mechanism's scale grew by over 50% from lows to 2023 peaks, with distributions maintaining the Church's dominance at 66-70% but evidencing gradual erosion in relative preference.

Evaluations and Controversies

Arguments for Efficacy and Social Benefits

Proponents of the otto per mille system argue that it effectively channels taxpayer funds into , supplementing public welfare expenditures without requiring additional taxation, as the allocation draws from existing IRPEF revenues. Religious organizations, which receive the majority of designated shares, utilize these funds to support charitable initiatives, including aid for the poor, migrants, and disaster victims, leveraging their extensive local networks and volunteer bases for efficient delivery. For instance, the , the largest beneficiary, allocated €103,862,825 from otto per mille receipts in 2020 specifically to national and international charitable interventions, such as and community support programs operated by entities like Caritas. This approach is claimed to enhance service provision by tapping into faith-motivated commitments that reduce administrative overheads compared to purely state-run programs. The Waldensian and Methodist Churches exemplify targeted efficacy by directing 100% of their otto per mille funds—approximately €45 million in 2025—exclusively to social, health, humanitarian, and cultural projects, funding 1,463 initiatives across and abroad, including , integration for vulnerable groups, and economic support. These organizations have implemented impact measurement frameworks to evaluate outcomes, such as improved through programs and social inclusion efforts, demonstrating and results-oriented use of resources. Advocates contend this decentralized model fosters competition among beneficiaries, encouraging innovative and responsive social interventions that address gaps in state services, like emergency relief and family assistance. State-managed portions further bolster social benefits by financing non-religious welfare priorities, including disaster recovery, hunger alleviation, and preservation, with annual distributions enabling rapid responses to crises without diverting general funds. Overall, the system's voluntary designation mechanism is praised for promoting and pluralism, as taxpayer choices directly influence to proven social providers, yielding measurable outputs like thousands of annual projects that mitigate and enhance .

Criticisms of Compulsory Contribution and Secular Concerns

The otto per mille system mandates deduction of 0.8% from all personal income tax (IRPEF) revenues, with no provision for taxpayers to entirely, leading critics to characterize it as a compulsory levy rather than a purely voluntary . Taxpayers may designate the funds to a religious with a state intesa or to the state for social purposes, but from selection—historically affecting over 50% of returns—triggers proportional redistribution according to the preferences of those who did choose, effectively channeling non-selectors' portions to dominant recipients. Secular organizations, such as the Unione degli Atei e degli Agnostici Razionalisti (UAAR), contend that this framework compels non-believers and indifferent taxpayers to subsidize religious activities, infringing on Italy's principle of laicità enshrined in the Constitution, which requires impartiality toward religious and non-religious convictions. The UAAR has described the mechanism as inherently deceptive, noting that the state underpromotes its own social allocation option while religious entities, particularly the , deploy extensive advertising campaigns—exceeding 10 billion lire in some years—to solicit choices. Empirical outcomes underscore the critique: in 1996, only 37.56% of expressed choices favored the , yet proportional allocation of the 54.51% unexpressed portions elevated its share to 82.56% of total funds (1,454 billion lire). Similar disparities persist; for 2020 income declarations, 58% of the Church's 990.9 million allocation derived from non-expressed choices. Critics argue this amplifies major religions' advantages, distorting the religious landscape by incentivizing minor groups to seek intese primarily for funding access, while excluding secular associations from comparable streams like the parallel 5 system for non-profits. Such concerns have prompted calls for , including adoption of models like Germany's Kirchensteuer, where contributions are levied only on self-identified members of participating churches, ensuring genuine opt-in without default subsidies from non-adherents. Proponents of abolition or overhaul emphasize that the current setup entangles the state in religious finance, potentially eroding public trust in fiscal neutrality and prioritizing confessional entities over equitable social welfare distribution.

Transparency and Misuse Allegations

The Italian Court of Auditors (Corte dei Conti) has repeatedly highlighted deficiencies in transparency within the otto per mille system, particularly regarding the allocation and expenditure of funds by religious entities and the state. In its 2014 deliberation, the Court criticized the mechanism for lacking effective oversight mechanisms, despite annual distributions surpassing €1.2 billion, with the state often failing to enforce rigorous reporting or verification of end-use compliance. This opacity, according to the auditors, enables disproportionate benefits to primary recipients such as the Catholic Church while minimizing public accountability for specific project outcomes. Misuse allegations have centered on instances of funds being diverted from designated charitable or social purposes, with early media and judicial reports from the onward documenting cases of penal relevance, including improper administrative expenditures rather than aid initiatives. For the state's portion, a by consumer advocacy group Aduc described management practices as scandalous, pointing to inefficient distribution without competitive tenders or detailed impact assessments, leading to funds supporting non-priority projects. Church-related claims have involved diocesan-level discrepancies, such as in the 2018 Montecassino Abbey case, where offerings intertwined with otto per mille proceeds were allegedly redirected to administrative or personal accounts, prompting investigations into fiduciary breaches. Italian Bishops' Conference (CEI) officials have conceded internal monitoring shortcomings, with a 2017 statement from a attributing public reluctance to contribute—evidenced by declining designations—to "too many lawsuits and few controls," urging direct inspections of expenditures to rebuild trust. CEI internal polls that year linked a contribution "flop" to accumulated scandals, reflecting broader amid opaque balance sheets that aggregate spending categories without granular breakdowns. Despite these critiques, no systemic overhaul has occurred, with the Court of Auditors in 2015 reiterating calls for enhanced state intervention to mitigate risks of distortion in fund usage.

Government Interventions and Institutional Disputes

The Italian government administers the otto per mille system via the Department for Coordination and Administrative Planning (DICA), which oversees the repartition of the quota devolved to direct state management from unspecified taxpayer choices, allocating it to categories such as social assistance, preservation, and aid. Annual decrees by the President of the Council of Ministers, approved by parliamentary commissions, detail these allocations; for instance, the 2020 decree specified interventions for cultural goods conservation from the state quota. These measures stem from Law No. 222 of May 20, 1985, which implemented the 1984 revision of the Lateran Concordat and established proportional distribution for non-explicit designations. In 2016, the government intervened to terminate allocations of the state-managed otto per mille quota to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citing inefficacy and redirecting funds exclusively to state-administered projects amid delays in distributions exceeding five months at the time. This shift prioritized direct governmental control over expenditures, reducing intermediary involvement. A significant institutional dispute emerged in June 2025 when the government unilaterally modified the regulatory framework for the state quota's utilization, incorporating recovery programs for drug addiction into eligible purposes under Decree of the President of the Council amending prior otto per mille regulations. Cardinal , president of the Italian Bishops' Conference (CEI), criticized the move as a "unilateral" alteration of purposes and attribution modalities, contending it penalizes the and other confessions by disrupting established Concordat-based balances without prior consultation. Government officials countered that the change constitutes a minor adjustment to address pressing social priorities, maintaining that state authority over its quota remains intact per constitutional fiscal powers. This clash highlights tensions between ecclesiastical expectations of negotiated revisions—rooted in the 1984 —and the government's assertion of sovereignty over public funds, exacerbating concerns over eroding church designations amid a five-year decline of over €200 million in CEI receipts. Such disputes underscore broader institutional frictions, including calls for enhanced bilateral on quota criteria, as the state quota—derived from approximately 50% of non-designating taxpayers—influences overall fiscal dynamics without directly altering shares but affecting public and resource .

References

  1. https://www.ottopermillevaldese.org/english-version/
  2. https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2024/05/for-first-time-italian-church-nets-less-than-1-billion-in-taxpayer-funds
  3. https://bitterwinter.org/otto-per-mille-the-catholic-church-vs-the-italian-government-on-religious-tax/
  4. https://zenit.org/2025/06/14/the-religious-tax-in-italy-explanation-and-why-it-has-become-a-recent-church-state-issue/
  5. https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2021/08/catholic-church-in-italy-grapples-with-loss-of-tax-funds
  6. https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/zuppi-criticizes-italian-states-unilateral
  7. https://www.concordatwatch.eu/profitable-way-to-stop-being-state-church-the-1984-concordat-modifications--t39201
  8. https://presidenza.governo.it/usri/confessioni/doc/otto_per_mille.pdf
  9. https://www.firstonline.info/en/accadde-oggi-8x1000-nel-1984-laccordo-per-finanziare-la-chiesa/
  10. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/19/world/italy-abolishes-state-religion-in-vatican-pact.html
  11. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/archivio/documents/rc_seg-st_19850603_santa-sede-italia_it.html
  12. https://www.agi.it/politica/news/2024-02-10/40-anni-fa-concordato-stato-chiesa-25232984/
  13. https://presidenza.governo.it/usri/confessioni/accordo_indice.html
  14. https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1985-05-20;222
  15. https://www.governo.it/it/dipartimenti/dip-il-coordinamento-amministrativo/dica-norm-8x1000/9307
  16. https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/controversy-8x1000-cei-we-are-disappointed-church-damaged-AHomUg5
  17. https://documenti.camera.it/leg19/dossier/pdf/BI0117.pdf
  18. https://www.governo.it/it/dipartimenti/dip-il-coordinamento-amministrativo/27659
  19. https://www.rivistadirittoereligioni.com/newsitalia-il-disappunto-della-cei-sulle-recenti-modifiche-normative-in-tema-di-gestione-dellotto-per-mille-di-pertinenza-statale-andrea-micciche/
  20. https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/scelte-8-5-e-2-per-mille-irpef-2025/che-cosa-e
  21. https://infoprecompilata.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/web/guest/scelte-8-5-e-2-per-mille
  22. https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/scelte-8-5-e-2-per-mille-irpef-2025/scheda
  23. https://sovvenire.chiesacattolica.it/cpt_newsletter/8xmille-guida-alla-firma-2025/
  24. https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/come-presentare-la-scheda
  25. https://www.fiscooggi.it/portale/-/8-5-e-2-per-mille-dell-irpef-le-scelte-viaggiano-anche-via-web
  26. https://infoprecompilata.agenziaentrate.it/portale/destinazione-dell-otto-del-cinque-e-del-due-per-mille-dell-irpef
  27. https://www.fiscoetasse.com/domande-e-risposte/1207-a-chi-si-pu-destinare-l-otto-per-mille.html
  28. https://www.ottopermillevaldese.org/come_funziona_8x1000/
  29. https://ottopermilleavventisti.it/cosa-succede-se-non-scelgo-l8x1000/
  30. https://www.vidas.it/approfondimenti/5-per-mille-e-8-per-mille-qual-e-la-differenza/
  31. https://www.lindipendente.online/2023/08/03/a-chi-finisce-lotto-per-mille-di-chi-non-sceglie-nessuna-opzione/
  32. https://www.agenziaentrate.gov.it/portale/scelte-dell-8-5-e-2-per-mille-irpef-2024/8-per-mille
  33. https://www.finanze.gov.it/it/statistiche-fiscali/DichiarazioniFiscali-/
  34. https://www.mef.gov.it/ufficio-stampa/comunicati/2024/Irpef-8-per-mille-pubblicati-i-dati-sulle-scelte-dei-contribuenti-e-sugli-importi-erogati-nel-2024/
  35. https://www.governo.it/it/dipartimenti/dip-il-coordinamento-amministrativo/dica-att-8x1000/9303
  36. https://presidenza.governo.it/USRI/confessioni/ottoxmille.html
  37. https://www.finanze.gov.it/.galleries/link_Esterni_Applicazioni/ottopermille.ext
  38. https://www.uaar.it/laicita/otto-per-mille/
  39. https://finanza.repubblica.it/News/2024/07/11/irpef_lotto_per_mille_alla_chiesa_cattolica_sotto_il_miliardo-201/
  40. https://www.rtl.it/notizie/articoli/la-chiesa-riceve-il-70-dell-8-per-mille-nonostante-il-calo-delle-scelte-dei-contribuenti/
  41. https://azionecattolica.it/8xmille-alla-chiesa-cattolica/
  42. https://www.secondowelfare.it/terzo-settore/enti-religiosi/come-vengono-utilizzate-le-risorse-8x1000/
  43. https://documenti.camera.it/leg19/dossier/testi/BI0117.htm
  44. https://www.governo.it/it/dipartimenti/dip-il-coordinamento-amministrativo/dica-att-8x1000-cosae/18318
  45. https://www.vita.it/8-per-mille-allo-stato-si-allarga-la-platea-fondi-anche-per-il-contrasto-alle-dipendenze/
  46. https://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Guida_presentazione_domanda_finanziamento-ed_2025_2.pdf
  47. https://csvassovoce.it/otto-per-mille-a-gestione-diretta-statale-anno-2024/
  48. https://laicamente.org/8x1000-ecco-a-chi-va-la-quota-destinata-allo-stato/
  49. https://www.8xmille.it/domande-frequenti/
  50. https://www.fiscoetasse.com/normativa-prassi/12018-8-per-mille-la-corte-dei-conti-mette-sotto-accusa-il-meccanismo.html
  51. https://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Guida_rendicontazione_progetti_rev2025_0.pdf
  52. https://www.governo.it/it/dipartimenti/dip-il-coordinamento-amministrativo/dica-att-8x1000-monitoraggio/18319
  53. https://www.corteconti.it/HOME/Documenti/DettaglioDocumenti?Id=b40ab30d-efad-46ba-96e0-9f5379d13769
  54. https://www.repubblica.it/economia/2015/11/02/news/corte_dei_conti_contro_l_8_per_mille_pochi_controlli_favorisce_la_chiesa_-126464710/
  55. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/corte-conti-critica-governo-su-gestione-8-per-mille-idUSKCN0JC0YP/
  56. https://www1.finanze.gov.it/finanze/stat_8xMilleSerie/public/index.php?req_classe=01
  57. https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/the-8-mille-is-worth-a-billion-70-per-cent-takes-the-catholic-church-AF0W16lC
  58. https://www1.finanze.gov.it/finanze/stat_8xMilleSerie/public/index.php?req_block_column=4&req_classe=01
  59. https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/fisco-8-mille-chiesa-cattolica-1-miliardo-stato-376-milioni-AHVyHUiB
  60. https://www.youtrend.it/2020/12/17/sempre-meno-italiani-destinano-l8-per-mille-alla-chiesa-cattolica/
  61. https://www.lastampa.it/economia/2025/06/08/news/otto_per_mille_cei_200_milioni-15181838/
  62. https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/l-8-mille-vale-miliardo-70percento-prende-chiesa-cattolica-AF0W16lC
  63. https://www.economymagazine.it/otto-per-mille-nel-2025-oltre-un-miliardo-alla-chiesa-cattolica-allo-stato-375-milioni/
  64. https://tg24.sky.it/economia/2025/07/15/8-per-mille-ripartizione-chiesa-stato-dati
  65. https://www.8xmille.it/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CEI2020_DEF.pdf
  66. https://www.ottopermillevaldese.org/pubblicato-lelenco-dei-progetti-approvati-2025/
  67. http://www.eurodiaconia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Daniele-Del-Priore-Diaconia-Valdese-Impact-measurement-in-the-Social-Economy.pdf
  68. https://www.ottopermillevaldese.org/
  69. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/04/30/in-western-european-countries-with-church-taxes-support-for-the-tradition-remains-strong/
  70. https://www.uaar.it/uaar/ateo/archivio/2001_2_art3.html/
  71. https://fot.humanists.international/countries/europe-southern-europe/italy/
  72. https://www.icostidellachiesa.it/otto-per-mille/
  73. https://flore.unifi.it/retrieve/e398c37c-e9ec-179a-e053-3705fe0a4cff/Prof.%20Croce_L%27otto%20per%20mille.pdf
  74. https://www.repubblica.it/economia/2014/11/28/news/corte_dei_conti_otto_per_mille-101616512/
  75. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2015/11/02/otto-per-mille-corte-dei-conti-accusa-poco-trasparente-e-favorisce-la-chiesa/2181055/
  76. https://www.aduc.it/comunicato/otto%2Bmille%2Ballo%2Bstato%2Bgestione%2Bscandalo%2Bnello_11872.php
  77. https://www.frosinonetoday.it/cronaca/montecassino-danaro-scandalo-soldi-poveri.html
  78. https://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/otto-per-mille-chiesa-5a9e8ff2
  79. https://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/8-per-mille-f3bb6067
  80. https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/statoechiese/article/download/6631/6564/19855
  81. https://www.camera.it/leg18/142
  82. https://www.redattoresociale.it/article/notiziario/la_fine_dell_8_per_mille_alle_ong_non_ha_mai_funzionato_dal_2016_si_cambia
  83. https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/polemica-8x1000-cei-siamo-delusi-chiesa-danneggiata-AHomUg5
  84. https://www.avvenire.it/chiesa/chiesa-italiana/zuppi-sull8xmille-delusi-dal-governo-la-replica-solo-una-mini-modifica_92690
  85. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2025/06/03/scontro-governo-chiesa-8xmille-modifiche-finalita/8013032/
  86. https://www.governo.it/it/dipartimenti/dip-il-coordinamento-amministrativo/27526
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.