by InTrieste
Italy’s tax authority has confirmed that a long-standing surcharge on income derived from pornographic material must now be paid by digital creators, extending a little-known levy from the traditional adult-entertainment sector to thousands of freelancers working on platforms like OnlyFans.
The measure, widely referred to as the tassa etica or “ethical tax,” was introduced in 2005 as part of Law 266/2005. For nearly two decades, it applied mainly to film producers, erotic boutiques and adult-entertainment venues. The tax adds a 25 percent surcharge to income generated from the production, distribution or sale of pornographic material, as well as content deemed to promote violence.
In recent guidance, the Agenzia delle Entrate clarified that the surcharge also applies to individuals who operate under Italy’s popular regime forfettario, a simplified flat-rate tax system used by many small freelancers. That includes creators who earn income by selling explicit images, videos or messaging services on subscription platforms.
Italy counts roughly 85,000 OnlyFans creators, according to industry estimates, with more than 45,000 using the forfettario regime. Tax experts say many of these workers could now face new obligations and, in some cases, retroactive payments if part of their income is classified as pornographic.
The surcharge does not apply to all earnings, but only to the share derived from explicit sexual content. Under the forfettario system, creators will be required to calculate their taxable base according to existing rules and then isolate the portion attributable specifically to pornographic material.
Defining that portion is proving contentious. While the law describes pornography as explicit sexual acts between consenting adults, much of the assessment is carried out on a case-by-case basis, leaving grey areas for creators whose output mixes erotic, artistic or suggestive material. The uncertainty has become a central point of criticism from tax professionals and digital-rights advocates, who argue that the measure risks inconsistent enforcement.
The renewed focus on the ethical tax has triggered a broader debate about the role of morality in fiscal policy. Critics contend that the surcharge effectively penalizes legal adult labour, resulting in two freelancers with similar earnings paying significantly different tax rates depending solely on the nature of their work. Some lawmakers have called the levy an outdated remnant of early-2000s moral concerns, and several political groups have floated proposals to revise or abolish it.
Italy is not alone in imposing special rules on the adult-entertainment industry. France has long taxed X-rated films at rates of around 33 percent and applies additional levies to certain online adult services. In the United States, there is no federal tax on pornography, though individual states have periodically attempted to introduce fees or “sin taxes” linked to age-verification mandates. Germany and several Northern European countries rely on strict licensing systems and operating fees for physical venues. In parts of Asia and the Middle East, the issue is effectively bypassed through prohibition; pornography is illegal in countries such as South Korea, where distribution is blocked by national censorship laws. Some African nations, including Uganda and Tanzania, have experimented with taxes on digital services deemed immoral or harmful.
What distinguishes Italy’s approach, analysts say, is the direct application of a surtax to personal income, rather than taxing adult content at the point of sale or through operational licenses. Few countries extend such levies to individual digital creators working under simplified fiscal regimes.
The expansion of the ethical tax underscores the growing intersection between tax authorities and the creator economy, a sector that has rapidly evolved beyond the assumptions of early-2000s legislation. For many digital workers, the ruling introduces new administrative burdens and reinforces the need to separate explicit and non-explicit revenue streams. It also raises a question that is likely to become more pressing: to what extent should tax policy reflect moral judgments, and how should laws drafted before the rise of online platforms be adapted to work that did not exist when they were written?
