Latest amendments to act on family foundations

General ruling: equal tax treatment after transcription of marriage concluded in another EU Member State

On 24 September 2026, the Official Journal of the Minister of Finance and Economy published General Ruling No. DTS6.8022.6.2026 on the tax consequences of transcribing into the Polish civil register the marriage certificates of same‑sex EU citizens whose marriage was concluded in another EU Member State. The general ruling, issued in connection with the CJEU judgment in case C‑713/23, confirms that individuals whose marriage certificate has been transcribed are entitled to the same tax rights as opposite‑sex married couples and are subject to the same tax obligations.

Last week, a bill amending the VAT Act was published, providing for the deferral of monetary penalties for errors related to KSeF until 31 December 2027 and extending the application of the reverse‑charge mechanism to supplies of gas in the gas system, electricity and services relating to the transfer of greenhouse gas emission allowances until 30 June 2030. New provisions are expected to enter into force on 31 December 2026.

The Government Legislation Centre has published a bill, dated 15 September 2026, introducing further tightening of the tax regime for family foundations.

Key elements include making preferential taxation conditional on maintaining ownership of assets for at least two years (earlier bills proposed 36 months); bringing family foundations within the scope of the CFC (controlled foreign company) rules; preventing tax avoidance using tax‑transparent entities; clarifying the tax treatment of short‑term letting. The bill also provides for increasing the tax rate in Article 24q CIT from 15% to 19%; expanding the list of hidden profits, in particular to cover loans and receivables of the foundation that are remitted, time‑barred or deemed uncollectable; introducing a temporary mechanism allowing real estate and property rights to be returned from a foundation to the founder. New provisions are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2027.

On 18 September 2026, a decision dated 16 September 2026 (ref. DKP2.8082.8.2025) refusing to issue a clearance opinion was published in relation to a planned merger of companies previously used for intra‑group transactions involving trademarks (protective rights). The sequence of transactions described in the application involved, among others: carrying out earlier transactions concerning trademarks between related parties;
merging the companies involved in those transactions; and subsequently contributing the acquiring company to family foundations. According to the Head of the National Revenue Administration, the primary purpose of the original structure was to obtain tax benefits, including activating the tax value of trademarks and generating depreciation charges. The planned merger and contribution of the company to family foundations were intended to facilitate a tax‑efficient exit from that structure and transfer funds to the ultimate beneficiaries. The authority also pointed to several indicators of artificiality, such as splitting transactions without economic justification; involving entities with no substantive economic role; steps that offset one another within the structure; taking on economic risk disproportionate to any non‑tax benefits. The declared business aims (in particular, simplifying the structure and winding up inactive entities) were found to be secondary to the tax‑driven objectives. As a result, the Head of the National Revenue Administration denied a clearance opinion.

In a resolution of seven judges dated 21 September 2026 (ref. I FPS 2/26), the Supreme Administrative Court held that judicial review of a decision extending the VAT refund deadline does not, as a rule, cover earlier decisions issued for the same settlement period if those decisions were not appealed and remain in force. An exception applies where previous decisions are affected by serious defects that would justify their annulment in extraordinary proceedings and, at the same time, undermine the effectiveness of their entry into legal circulation. 

In a judgment of 22 September 2026 (case file II FSK 68/26), the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the limitation in the second sentence of Article 15(6) CIT does not apply to a real estate company which, for balance sheet purposes, measures its properties as long‑term investments (for example at fair value) and does not depreciate them through the profit and loss account. In such a case, the company retains the right to treat tax depreciation charges on the initial value of the properties as tax‑deductible costs under the general rules.