Latest developments regarding windfall tax

Last week, the Government published the preliminary remarks to the bill amending the Excise Duty Act and certain other statutes. The bill provides for a number of changes designed to simplify excise accounting and compliance obligations, including: the possibility of using taxpayers’ own IT systems to confirm receipt of aviation fuel exempt from excise duty; relaxation of the conditions for operating tax warehouses for various alcoholic beverages; and the ability to deduct excise duty on expired alcohol following its destruction.

Significant changes are also planned in relation to energy products. The bill envisages, among other things, removing the obligation to use the EMCS PL2 System in specified cases where a zero excise duty rate applies, abolishing the requirement that biogas, hydrogen and biohydrogen must be produced in a tax warehouse, and extending the list of circumstances in which the generation of small quantities of energy products as a by-product will not be treated as excise-covered production.

Changes will also be made to the Act on the Tax on the Extraction of Certain Minerals. It is planned to clarify the definition of qualifying capital expenditure so as to allow deductions for expenditure incurred on all investment projects listed in the schedule to the Act, including expenditure related to licences, the decommissioning of fixed assets used in extractive activities, and land reclamation.

The bill also introduces provisions regarding tax bands, the excise duty taxable base for passenger cars after a discount has been granted, and technical clarifications concerning e-SAD documentation and the operation of the EMCS PL2 System.

New regulations are to enter into force 30 days after promulgation.

On 16 July 2026, a draft regulation was published specifying the scope of data to be included in the tax return for the windfall tax on the disposal of liquid fuels. The return is intended to cover, among other things, the data required to calculate the tax, including reference revenues and costs, the reference margin, actual revenues and costs, notional revenues, as well as information on tax due, advance payments and the amount payable or overpaid. In parallel, provisions are being drafted to enable payments of this tax to be made via an individual tax micro-account. Both regulations are scheduled to enter into force on 1 August 2026, coinciding with the planned commencement of the Windfall Tax Act, which is currently awaiting the President’s signature.

On 13 July 2026, the European Commission adopted two acts supplementing the EU Regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR): a Delegated Act, which updates and simplifies the list of products covered by the Regulation, and an Implementing Act, which sets out the functioning of the EU Information System for submitting due diligence statements and simplified declaration.

The update to the product scope means that some products will be removed from the scope of the EUDR, while others – not previously covered – will be added to it, although their application will be deferred until 30 December 2027. The simplifications will also affect the IT system, including declarations submitted by micro and small operators and the technical specifications for API interface. The Delegated Act will now be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, which will have two months to object to the legislative proposals. The Implementing Act, meanwhile, will be published shortly in the Official Journal of the EU.

In its judgment of 15 July 2026 in case T-268/25, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered the conditions for forming VAT groups under Article 11 of the VAT Directive. According to the Court, legislation of a Member State which makes eligibility to form a value added tax group, comprising, on the one hand, persons carrying out activities subject to VAT and, on the other, persons carrying out activities exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity, subject to the condition that one person in the VAT group owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital of the other person or persons in that VAT group, unless that requirement constitutes a necessary and appropriate measure for attaining the objectives of combating tax evasion or avoidance, ius incompatible with Article 11 of the VAT Directive. Furthermore, Article 11 must be interpreted as not having direct effect allowing taxable persons to rely on it against their Member State in the event that that State’s legislation is not compatible with that provision and cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with it. 

In its judgment of 15 July 2026 (case file II FSK 1115/23), the Supreme Administrative Court addressed the PIT treatment of performances rendered to shareholders under Article 159 of the Code of Commercial Companies and Partnerships. The Court held that regular cash payments made to shareholders in a fixed amount, which in substance constitute additional remuneration for ongoing work or for managing the company, cannot be treated as revenue from participation in the profits of legal persons. Such payments, made irrespective of the company’s financial results, should instead be classified, as appropriate, as employment revenue or revenue from independently performed activities and taxed under the general rules.

In its judgment of 14 July 2026 (case file I FSK 2168/23), the Supreme Administrative Court held that a service consisting in providing data from sensors located at a specific geographical position may constitute a service connected with immovable property within the meaning of Article 28e of the VAT Act. The Court indicated that a service connected with immovable property must relate to a specific, individually identifiable property which is a central element of the supply. In the case at hand, the location of the sensors was determined with high precision, the sensors were permanently attached to the land, and the data supplied under the service depended closely on their location. The Court therefore found that, without this specific location, the service could not be provided in the intended form.

In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (case file I FSK 2302/23), the Supreme Administrative Court addressed the VAT exemption for insurance intermediation services. The Court held that activities performed exclusively in the name and on behalf of an insurer, without direct relationships with the insured parties, do not constitute insurance intermediation services and therefore do not benefit from the VAT exemption under Article 43(1)(37) of the VAT Act. The Court emphasised that the mere acceptance of an insurance application is of a technical nature and is not, in itself, sufficient to classify a given service as insurance intermediation.

In its judgment of 9 July 2026 (case file II FSK 1083/23), the Supreme Administrative Court considered the application of the lump-sum tax on corporate profits regime to expenditure related to employees’ use of company cars where the employees are not related to the shareholders. The Court found that, under the legal framework in force until 31 December 2022, expenses, depreciation charges and impairment write-downs relating to assets used in a mixed manner by persons other than shareholders or entities related to shareholders cannot be treated as hidden profits. The Court also indicated that such expenditure should not be classified as non-business expenses where it relates to assets used by employees who are not related to the shareholders.

In its judgment of 8 July 2026 in case T‑356/25, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that a tax representative may be appointed as the person liable for payment of the VAT, if appointed by a taxable person to replace them as the person liable for the payment. At the same time, the court indicated that it is not permissible to attribute to that representative joint and several liability solely by virtue of holding that role, where they did not participate in the taxable transactions and their involvement was limited to fulfilling VAT filing obligations. Imposing such liability requires an assessment of whether they knew or ought to have known that the tax would go unpaid and whether they acted in good faith. The CJEU also emphasised that different legal bases for VAT liability cannot be applied in parallel to the same person.