A subcontracting offer is signed by a company registered abroad. The quote comes from an Italian office, the site manager negotiates from another province and the contract is due to be signed by Friday. For the party awarding the work, the review starts with three questions. Which company is taking on the job? Who has authority to sign on its behalf? Who will send workers to the site?
On 9 November 2026, the Guardia di Finanza in Cuneo released the results of checks on a construction business whose declared registered office was in Romania. According to officers from the Mondovì unit, the directors had a sustained presence in the Mondovì area and almost all of the business’s work consisted of renovation projects carried out under subcontract in Emilia-Romagna. The command reported more than €1.7 million in revenue that it believes was kept outside the tax net. ANSA reported the findings the same day. That date refers to the announcement. The sources reviewed give no start date for the checks and report no final decision. [1] [2]
The registered office answers a specific question and is one part of the review. For income tax purposes, Article 73 of Italy’s Consolidated Income Tax Act also considers where effective management is based or where day-to-day management is primarily carried out for most of the tax period. In a commercial relationship, the question is narrower. The client needs to understand whether the documents match how the supplier presents itself, makes decisions and organises the work. [3]
Identify who fills each role before signing
Start with a current extract from the company register in the country of registration, obtained directly from the register where possible. Compare the company name, registration number, registered office and representatives with the details in the offer. If someone other than the named representative signs, ask for the document granting that person authority and check that it covers the work in question. Companies in the same group may share a brand on their quotes. The contract should identify the legal entity taking on the obligation.
Next, compare the contract with the work plan. Who designates the site contact? Which business supplies workers and equipment? Who approves a change to the work and who issues the invoice? Different companies can fill these roles for ordinary business reasons. If, for example, the foreign company proposes using an Italian business for part of the work, the client can ask what work it will perform, who will be accountable and how the arrangement will be documented. That gives the client a list of details to verify before work starts on site.
Discrepancies worth checking
A contact shared with other businesses or a meeting held in Italy can have simple explanations. Take a closer look when the company named in the contract never appears in operational confirmations, when instructions come from someone who works for another business or when the documents show different company names without explaining the relationship. A precise question with a request for supporting evidence can resolve more than a list of generic warning signs. If the manager acts in the name of another company, for instance, ask what gives them the authority to agree to a change that increases the price.
A short project record can list the companies involved, each company’s role, the documents reviewed and the checks still open. If the company doing the work or issuing the invoice changes after signing, the record helps identify which documents to update and who needs to approve the change. If questions arise about tax residence or the client’s obligations, this record gives the adviser a concrete set of facts to review.
GRISK can help the client verify the subcontractor’s corporate structure and use documentary evidence to establish the roles of the companies involved in the project.
Sources and editorial note
The opening scenario is hypothetical. The Guardia di Finanza statement was reviewed as reproduced by Agenzia giornalistica Opinione. ANSA reports the inspection findings and did not independently establish the facts. The checks described are editorial assessments for the party awarding the work.
- Guardia di Finanza, Cuneo provincial command, statement on a company with a reported fictitious registered office in Romania, reproduced by Agenzia giornalistica Opinione on 9 November 2026. https://www.agenziagiornalisticaopinione.it/opinionmix/gdf-guardia-di-finanza-attivita-di-contrasto-allevasione-fiscale-scoperta-societa-con-sede-fittizia-in-romania-ricavi-occultati-al-fisco-per-17-milioni-di-euro/
- ANSA, report on the inspection findings involving a company from Cuneo province, 9 November 2026. https://www.ansa.it/piemonte/notizie/2026/11/09/azienda-cuneese-evade-17-milioni-con-una-finta-sede-in-romania_14e231c6-bb92-4ae4-8e39-cba6b306d2f4.html
- Normattiva, Presidential Decree No. 917 of 22 December 1986, Article 73(3), text in force consulted on 9 November 2026. https://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.articolo.numero=73&atto.codiceRedazionale=086U0917&atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1986-12-31