KPMG Weekly Tax Review. SAC: reduced excise duty rate also covers “mild hybrids”

At the end of last week, the first official opinion concerning top-up taxation, dated 23 October 2025 (ref. no. 0111-KDGB.480.2.2025.2.DS), was published. It addresses the establishment of a five-year exemption from top-up taxation for a domestic group of companies whose financial years do not coincide with the calendar year. According to the Head of the National Revenue Information Service (HNRIS), in the case under consideration, Article 160 of the Top-up Taxation Act, which sets out the specific method for calculating the five-year exemption period, including for domestic groups of companies, should be applied irrespective of the date on which the Act comes into force. At the same time, the HNRIS also invoked a pro-EU interpretation of the domestic legislation. The opinion on top-up taxation is a newly introduced measure, incorporated into the Polish Tax Code alongside the implementation of top-up taxation. It is issued by the HNRIS upon request from the interested party, and may pertain to planned activities, activities that have commenced but are not yet completed, or actions directly related to the fulfilment of the party’s obligations under the Top-up Taxation Act.

Opinia w sprawie opodatkowania wyrównawczego

Last week, preliminary remarks on the bill amending a solution commonly referred to as the “tacit consent” procedure were published. The bill provides, inter alia, for:

• the introduction of tacit consent in its classic form in certain proceedings, wherever the nature of the intended objective and its formal legal consequences for the party involved permit such an approach;
• the implementation of analogous solutions aimed at simplifying procedures, such as shortening time limits, in cases where a classic “tacit settlement” cannot be applied.

 New regulations will apply to cases initiated after the bill comes into force. The bill is expected to be passed by the Council of Ministers in Q4 2025.

Założenia do projektu ustawy o zmianie niektórych ustaw w celu uproszczenia procedur administracyjnych w sprawach rozstrzyganych w drodze decyzji administracyjnych albo załatwianych milcząco

Last week, Regulation (EU) 2025/2083 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism was published. The regulation brings simplifications within the scope of the target period of CBAM operation. It provides for:

• a new exemption threshold of 50 tonnes for CBAM goods. Companies importing less than 50 tonnes of goods subject to CBAM annually will be exempt from CBAM obligations (except for the electricity and hydrogen sectors);
• continued importation of CBAM goods, even without having been granted authorized CBAM declarant status,
• postponing the start date for Member States to sell CBAM certificates to 1 February 2027.

In most cases, the new rules will apply to the target period starting on 1 January 2026 (subject to exceptions provided for in the regulation).

Regulation (EU) 2025/2083 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/956 as regards simplifying and strengthening the carbon border adjustment mechanism

In mid-October, the Tax Foundation, an independent American tax policy non-profit organization, published a review entitled “International Tax Competitiveness Index 2025”, which assesses the competitiveness of tax policies among OECD countries. Key elements of tax policy are analysed, including the taxation of personal income, corporate income, consumption, and property, as well as cross-border operations. In the latest edition of the ranking, Poland was placed 35th out of 38 OECD countries, representing a fall of six positions compared to the previous year. Among the positive aspects highlighted were the competitive corporate income tax rate (19%) and Poland’s extensive network of tax treaties. Conversely, the consumption tax system (VAT) was assessed negatively, as its neutrality is undermined by numerous exemptions and the application of reduced rates.

International Tax Competitiveness Index 2025 | Tax Foundation

At the beginning of last week, the Ministry of Finance and Economy proposed changes to the range of services that audit firms may provide to public-interest entities (PIEs) being their clients. The aim is to remove additional restrictions on the activities of audit firms that go beyond those set out in EU regulations. It has been proposed to abolish the “white list” of services that audit firms are permitted to provide to PIEs, and instead to apply only the “black list” of prohibited services specified in the EU regulation. As a result, audit firms would be able to offer any services to audited PIEs that are not expressly prohibited by the regulation. The preliminary remarks on the bill have now been published. The bill is expected to be passed by the Council of Ministers in Q4 2025.

Założenia do projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o biegłych rewidentach, firmach audytorskich oraz nadzorze publicznym oraz ustawy o rachunkowości

Last week, a clearance opinion dated 2 September 2025 (ref. no. DKP1.8082.8.2024) was published. The opinion concerns the merger of a public limited company [spółka akcyjna] with its subsidiaries by way of acquisition. The public limited company, acting as the sole shareholder of the subsidiaries, was to acquire the subsidiaries through a merger without increasing its share capital. The Head of the National Revenue Administration determined that, although tax benefits may arise in this case, they are not contrary to the provisions or purpose of tax law. At the same time, the Head of the National Revenue Administration noted that obtaining the aforementioned tax benefits was not the main or one of the main objectives of the transaction, as the merger would, among other things, simplify the legal and organizational structure of the company and its subsidiaries, and enhance management efficiency. Furthermore, the applicant’s actions were not deemed artificial, as the merger is economically and commercially justified. Consequently, Article 119a(1) of the Tax Code was found to have no application to the tax benefits presented by the applicant. As a result, the Head of the National Revenue Administration issued a clearance opinion.

Opinia zabezpieczająca w zakresie połączenia przez przejęcie

According to a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 23 October 2025 (case file I FSK 2037/24), vehicles equipped with internal combustion engines that are electrically assisted may qualify for reduced excise duty rates, regardless of the type of hybrid drive used. The Court noted that the provision introducing reduced excise duty rates should apply to cars with any type of combustion-electric drive that does not require connection to an external power source, and therefore also covers so-called mild hybrids.

According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 15 October 2025 (case file II FSK 125/23), half of the expenses related to the use of a vehicle for both private and business purposes, incurred by the company’s CEO who is also its shareholder, should be treated as hidden profits. In the opinion of the Court, the list of benefits constituting hidden profit within the meaning of the CIT Act is open-ended and the calculation provided is only illustrative.

According to the judgment delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court on 22 October 2025 (case file I FSK 1504/22), since granting a loan does not involve the use of any company assets in terms of input tax, it should be considered an occasional transaction. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that the income from the transaction exceeds the income from the company’s main activity does not preclude it from being classified as an occasional transaction. In addition, it noted that the loan repayment supervision service relates solely to VAT-exempt sales and is not connected to any taxable sales. As a result, the company is not entitled to deduct input tax in relation to this service.

According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative court dated 17 October 2025 (case file I FSK 1387/22), funds received through the consortium leader from the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) for the co-financing of scientific research and development work within a project are not subject to VAT. The Court emphasized that the co-financing provided by the NCBR to a company that is a consortium member does not directly affect the price of the service. In fact, the co-financing is not only linked to the possibility of utilizing the project and acquiring industrial property rights by the parent company, but also benefits the organizational units involved in preparing the project. Furthermore, as the project is not directed at the NCBR, the subsidy paid to the company does not constitute remuneration for a service supplied to the NCBR and is therefore not subject to VAT.

According to the judgment delivered by the CJEU on 23 October 2025 (case C-234/24), a refusal to refund the value added tax charged on the supply of equipment to a taxable person established in a Member State other than the Member State of purchase of those goods, where that equipment has not physically left the territory of the Member State is incompatible with EU law. According to the Court, a refusal would be possible only if such a supply was part of a single, indivisible economic supply, or was ancillary to a principal supply comprising intra-Community supplies of goods produced using that equipment and intended for that taxable person.

According to the judgment delivered by the CJEU on 23 October 2025 (case C-232/24), as regards trade factoring, in the context of which the factor relieves the client of debt recovery operations and of the risk of the debts not being paid, the factoring commission paid for a debt collection service the value of which increases the longer the payment term and the greater the level of risk assumed by the factor and the arrangement fees paid by the client constitute the value actually given in return for the supply of services falling within the scope of the directive. According to the Court, the commission and the arrangement fee charged by the factor in the context of trade or invoice factoring constitute consideration for a single and indivisible service of debt collection, subject to value added tax.