Planned changes to verification activities

Planned changes to verification activities

On 6 October 2026, the Government published policy assumptions for an amendment to the Tax Code. The bill provides, in particular, for a broader scope of verification activities and admissible evidence; a three-month time limit for completing verification activities; an obligation to inform taxpayers about the course and outcome of the verification; protection for taxpayers where the authority has not identified irregularities or where the taxpayer has followed the authority’s findings.

In addition, the proposals include new forms of voluntary security; wider use of reduced interest rates; a requirement for authorities to prioritise data already in their possession; the option for taxpayers to waive their right of appeal; extending the appeal deadline from 14 to 30 days; substantive (merits based) review of security decisions; the possibility of issuing a tax clearance certificate in the context of a restructuring arrangement.  Adoption of the bill is planned for Q1 2027.

In a judgment of 7 October 2026 (case T-773/25, F GmbH), the General Court held that invoices issued several years after supplies were made, and bearing the “reverse charge” notation for the first time, do not retroactively entitle those supplies to the triangulation simplification under Article 42(a) in conjunction with Article 197(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC. As a result, VAT corrections for such supplies cannot be reported either in the current or in future settlement periods.

In a judgment of 6 October 2026 (case file III FSK 876/25), the Supreme Administrative Court reiterated that mere ownership of real estate by an entrepreneur does not automatically determine its link to business activity. Referring to the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgment of 24 February 2021 (case file SK 39/19), the Court stressed that factors such as actual or potential use, the taxpayer’s business profile and functional links with the enterprise are decisive. Where a company’s sole activity consists of letting and managing properties, a temporary lack of tenants for market driven reasons does not break that link. The properties therefore remain subject to the highest real estate tax rates. 

In several recent cases (including I FSK 230/24, I FSK 72/24, I FSK 268/24), the Supreme Administrative Court addressed the application of the 0% VAT rate to exports of goods. The Court held that entitlement to the 0% rate depends on the actual export of goods outside the EU, rather than on the mere possession of a formal customs document.  The list of evidence in Article 41(6) and (6a) of the VAT Act is open, so the absence of an electronic customs message does not in itself deprive the taxpayer of the 0% rate, provided that other reliable documents confirm export and delivery of the goods to a non-EU customer and the transaction is not linked to fraud or abuse.
 On 7 October 2026 (case file I FSK 72/24), the Court dismissed the tax authority’s last resort appeal and upheld the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court in Kraków of 12 September 2023 (case file I SA/Kr 683/23),  confirming that it is the factual export that is decisive, not the use of a specific customs procedure.  The Court referred to its earlier judgments in cases I FSK 1187/21 (11 October 2022) and I FSK 300/24 (2 September 2026). Unlike in the first part, the emphasis here is on the outcome of the proceedings, namely upholding the Voivodship Administrative Court’s position and dismissing the cassation appeal.

In a judgment of 7 October 2026 (case file II FSK 1340/23), the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the transfer to a shareholder of shares in an SCSp (a type of Luxembourg company) under a datio in solutum arrangement, in order to settle an obligation to pay a dividend or consideration for share redemption, gives rise to revenue from capital gains for the company under Article 7b(1)(4) of the CIT Act. 

In a judgment of 7 October 2026 (case file II FSK 1309/23), the Supreme Administrative Court held that a company which receives an in kind contribution of an enterprise, an organised part of an enterprise (ZCP) or assets with a value exceeding EUR 10,000 cannot opt for the lump-sum tax on corporate income (Estonian CIT) in the year of the contribution or in the immediately following year, and in any event not for a period shorter than 24 months from the contribution date (Article 28k(1)(6) CIT).

In a judgment of 1 October 2026 (case file II FSK 1300/23), the Supreme Administrative Court held that, under Article 28k(2) CIT, the temporary exclusion from Estonian CIT also applies, by analogy, to entities receiving in-kind contributions. A company receiving a contribution in the form of property rights (such as bonds or receivables) falls within the scope of Article 28k(1)(6) in conjunction with (2) CIT. However, where the subject of the contribution does not constitute an enterprise, an organized part of an enterprise or assets thereof, the substantive conditions are not met, and the company is not subject to the temporary exclusion from eligibility for the lump-sum tax regime.