KPMG Weekly Tax Review 08 APR - 15 APR 2024

On 5 April 2024, a bill amending certain acts to deregulate economic and administrative law and improve rules for developing economic law was published on the Government Legislation Centre’s website. The bill seeks to amend, inter alia:

1. the CIT Act in terms of R&D relief,
2. the Polish Tax Code to counteract launching preparatory proceedings only to stay the limitation period for tax liabilities,
3. the VAT Act through specifying that a regulation on exemptions from the obligation of keeping records using cash registers shall be issued no more often than once every 3 years. 

On 5 April 2024, the Minister of Finance announced the launch of tax consultations on new logical structures for JPK_PKPiR, JPK_EWP, and JPK_ST for personal income tax payers and payers of lump-sum income tax on certain recorded revenues generated by natural persons.

Opinions supported by explanations - in the form of editable documents - should be submitted by 10 May 2024.

On 9 April 2024, a bill amending the Act on the Exchange of Tax Information with other States and certain other acts was passed by the Council of Ministers.

It implements a directive commonly referred to as DAC 7, i.e., Council Directive (EU) 2021/514 of 22 March 2021 amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation.

The DAC7 Directive obliges platform operators from EU Member States to collect data on specific sellers and transactions concluded via these platforms and to provide it to tax authorities.

New regulations are to enter into force on 1 July 2024. 

On 10 April 2024, a deputies’ bill amending the Polish Tax Code of 29 August 1997 was submitted before the Lower House of the Polish Parliament. The bill provides for repealing Article 70(6)(1) of the Polish Tax Code as well as repealing Articles 70(7)(1) and 70c thereof, which are inextricably linked to it. Moreover, it proposes adjusting the wording of Article 71 of the Tax Code to align it with the legal status in which Article 70c thereof will no longer be in effect. 

On 11 April 2024, Advocate General Juliane Kokott issued an opinion in case C-709/22 which is of particular importance to insolvency administrators.

The subject of the dispute between the parties is the national tax authorities’ refusal to transfer funds accumulated in the VAT account of a taxpayer declared bankrupt to the insolvency administrator, issued under Article 108b(5)(1) of the VAT Act.

The case was presented before the Regional Administrative Court in Wrocław, which has decided to stay the proceedings and refer the questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

On 11 April 2024, Advocate General Juliane Kokott issued an opinion in case C-709/22. According to the Advocate General, Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principles of proportionality, neutrality, the rule of law, legal certainty, sincere cooperation and good administration, as well as the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Articles 395 and 206 thereof, and of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/310, do not preclude national legislation and practice whereby the insolvency administrator is denied permission to transfer the funds held in the VAT account belonging to the taxable person to the bank account designated by the insolvency administrator, in so far as the taxable person still has tax arrears.

According to the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw dated 10 April 2024 in case III SA/Wa 97/24, Article 27(2) of the Excise Duty Act clearly indicates that in order for a place of import to be in a tax warehouse, the authorized warehouse keeper must hold a decision, issued on the basis of the provisions of customs law, to recognize the place where excise goods may be placed under release for free circulation and notify the competent head of a tax office about holding the aforementioned decision. Since the Company has its tax warehouse within the designated place and wants to import excise goods directly from that tax warehouse, the place of import cannot be located within that warehouse.

According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 10 April 2024 in case II FSK 836/21, to correctly interpret Article 17(1)(6c) of the CIT Act, it must be read in conjunction with Article 17(1a)(2), Article 17(1b), and Article 25(4) thereof. In the case under examination, there is no doubt that the foundation is a public benefit organization, the condition of destination of income, however, has not been met. In fact, the income was initially allocated to statutory purposes, later, however, under resolutions made by the foundation’s board, the destination has changed and eventually the income was spent on business purposes and not on statutory activities.

According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 10 April 2024 in case I FSK 869/21, in the case of conclusion of a contract of the transfer of title to secure the lender, no “gainful disposal” takes place. Such a gainful disposal will only take place once the ownership of the real estate is finally transferred on the secured entity.