Customs reform approved by Council of European Union

New guidance and materials on Pillar Two released by OECD

On 11 September 2026, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS released a package of materials aimed at promoting the consistent implementation and application of the Global Minimum Tax (Pillar Two) across jurisdictions. The published materials include, among others:

• an updated GloBE Information Return (GIR), incorporating the simplifications introduced under the Side-by-Side Package, which will apply to returns filed for fiscal years beginning on or after 31 December 2025;
• documentation relating to the full legislative review process, designed to assess whether domestic legislation implementing Pillar Two is aligned with the agreed OECD rules;
• administrative guidance on the treatment of explicitly conditional taxes;
• administrative guidance on the use of local financial accounting standards for the purposes of the Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT) where fiscal periods do not align.

On 3 September 2026, the Council of the EU approved a comprehensive reform of the EU customs framework, assigning the role of importer to non‑EU e‑commerce platforms, thereby transferring to those entities responsibility for completing customs formalities and paying customs duties on sales of goods to the EU. Importantly, the reform introduces a “trust and check” status for businesses meeting specified compliance and transparency criteria, allowing them to benefit from simplified customs procedures. In addition, from 1 November 2026, an EU‑wide handling fee is to be introduced for low‑value consignments sent to the EU in the context of e‑commerce. The final text of the reform is expected to be approved by the European Parliament in September 2026 and subsequently published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Last week, a draft regulation extending the list of taxes, fees, and non‑tax budgetary charges payable using an individual tax account was released. The draft regulation proposes extending the scope of payments made via individual tax accounts to cover liabilities arising from the OKI‑ZR return (a return on the average value of assets held in personal investment accounts and the tax due on those assets). Taxpayers will be required to pay the tax shown in this return by 31 May of the year following the relevant taxable year. Furthermore, the draft regulation provides for removing obsolete forms CIT-8A, CIT-8B and POG-4 from the list as well as for amendments to the title of the section relating to gambling tax. The regulation is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2027.

On 8 September 2026, a bill on the cryptocurrency market, submitted by the President, was tabled in the Sejm. The bill is broadly aligned with both the earlier presidential proposal from May 2026 and previous government drafts but introduces changes to the way in which supervision of the market is exercised. The presidential bill provides for the possibility of extending a block for a maximum of three months (rather than six months as envisaged in the government bill) and makes such an extension conditional on prior approval from an administrative court. In addition, the bill introduces State Treasury liability for damages resulting from an unlawful block. The changes also cover the costs of supervision. Furthermore, bill reduces the maximum fees charged by the KNF to participants in the crypto‑asset market. For issuers, the cap would be set at 0.1% of the value of liabilities arising from the issued tokens (compared with 0.5% under the government bill), while for crypto‑asset service providers the maximum fee would be limited to 0.1% of revenues (instead of 0.4%). The presidential bill also provides for a more limited application of the mechanism for blocking Internet domains. Entry in the register of blocked domains would apply only to entities operating without the required authorisation. For other breaches of crypto‑asset market rules, less severe measures are envisaged, such as inclusion on the KNF public warnings list and an obligation on the website owner to publish a warning notice.

During the meeting held on 8-9 September 2026, the Monetary Policy Council decided to keep the NBP interest rates unchanged, i.e.:

• reference rate at 3.75% annually;
• lombard loan interest rate at 4.25% annually;
• deposit rate at 3.25% annually;
• rediscount rate at 3.80% annually;
• discount rate on bills of exchange at 3.85% annually.

The reference rate has influence on other financial parameters, e.g.,

• the amount of interest on tax arrears (200% of the basic lombard loan interest rate + 2%, except that the rate may not be lower than 8%). As a result, interest on tax arrears continues to amount to 10.5% on an annual basis.
• as well as the limit of notional costs of external financing,
• and a reduction in the amount of tax liability in the event of payment of VAT in full from a VAT account earlier than the deadline for paying the tax.

On 11 September 2026, a decision was published refusing to issue an opinion on top‑up taxation under Article 14u(5) of the Tax Code (ref. 0111‑KDGB.480.2.2026.4.JSZ). The case concerned whether an investment fund, forming part of a group following a planned reorganisation, could be treated as an excluded entity under Article 5(2)(7)(a) of the GLOBE Act. Under the planned reorganisation, the group intended, among other things, to set up an alternative investment company (AIC), carve out part of its operating activities into separate entities, and then create a structure in which the AIC would become the ultimate parent entity of the group. The applicant argued that these steps were driven by business considerations, in particular the need to separate investment and operating activities and to facilitate raising capital for the group’s further growth. The Director of the National Revenue Information Service took the view that the circumstances presented gave rise to a justified suspicion that the planned reorganisation could lead to a tax advantage by excluding the parent entity and other group entities from the scope of the top‑up tax rules. In the authority’s assessment, the business objectives cited by the applicant could also be achieved without conferring AIC status on the parent entity. The authority stressed that the provisions excluding investment funds from top‑up taxation are intended to apply to entities of a specific nature and should not be used to structure a group in a way that removes it from the GLOBE regime. As a result, the Director of the National Revenue Information Service, relying on Article 14u(5) of the Tax Code, refused to issue an opinion on top‑up taxation.

Postanowienie o odmowie wydania opinii w sprawie opodatkowania wyrównawczego (sygn. 0111-KDGB.480.2.2026.4.JSZ)

In a judgment of 8 September 2026 (case file I FSK 19/24), the Supreme Administrative Court held that a debit note issued after the expiry of the limitation period for a tax liability does not entitle the purchaser to deduct the VAT shown on that note. A document issued because it is no longer possible to prepare a corrective invoice once the liability has become time‑barred cannot replace an invoice as the basis for deducting input VAT.

In a judgment of 9 September 2026 in case T‑366/25, the General Court ruled that the gratuitous transfer of a business to two individuals, each receiving a 50% interest, who then intend to contribute those interests to a company, does not constitute the transfer of all or part of a business’s assets within the meaning of Article 19 of the VAT Directive. The transaction in question therefore cannot benefit from the VAT exemption provided for in that article.