President refers windfall profits tax Act to Constitutional Tribunal

The President of the Republic of Poland has referred the Act on the tax on windfall profits from the disposal of liquid fuels achieved between March and December 2026 to the Constitutional Tribunal for preventive review. The President indicated that his main concerns relate to the retroactive effect of the Act, as the tax would apply to income generated before it enters into force. The application covers the Act in its entirety and alleges, among other things, a breach of the three‑reading rule, unequal treatment of selected entrepreneurs in the liquid fuels sector, and a violation of the principle of trust in the state and the law. The new levy was intended to amount to 60% of the taxable base and to apply to producers and importers of fuels carrying on business in Poland in the field of the production of liquid fuels and cross‑border trade in liquid fuels, who import such fuels or purchase them through intra‑Community acquisition.

Last week, a notice was published setting out the maximum rates of local taxes and charges for 2027. These maximum rates will serve as the basis for municipalities when determining real estate tax, although the final rates will remain at the discretion of city and municipal councils. The maximum rate of tax on buildings used for business purposes is to rise from PLN 35.53 to PLN 36.49 per square metre, and for residential buildings from PLN 1.25 to PLN 1.28 per square metre. For land used for business purposes, the limit will increase from PLN 1.45 to PLN 1.49 per square metre, and for other land from PLN 0.77 to PLN 0.79 per square metre.

In a judgment of 28 July 2026 (case file I SA/Bd 226/26), the Provincial Administrative Court in Bydgoszcz held that expenditure on postgraduate MBA studies incurred by an architect conducting sole‑proprietor business activity does not constitute tax‑deductible business expenses where the taxpayer fails to demonstrate an objective causal link between the expenditure and income, or with the maintenance or securing of the source of income. The Court indicated that the taxpayer’s subjective belief that the studies would increase competitiveness or improve the quality of services is not sufficient to satisfy the purposefulness condition set out in Article 22(1) of the Personal Income Tax Act. In such circumstances, the expenditure may be treated as of personal character.

In its judgment of 29 July 2026 (case file III SA/Wa 652/26), the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw held that Article 16(1)(13e) of the Corporate Income Tax Act excludes debt financing costs from tax‑deductible expenses only where they relate to a loan granted directly for the acquisition of shares. This exclusion does not cover financing costs incurred on the repayment of such a loan, nor on subsequent loans refinancing earlier liabilities.

In a separate judgment of 29 July 2026 (case file III SA/Wa 999/26), the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw found that the payment of interest or commission on loans granted to a company subject to Estonian CIT by its shareholders does not automatically give rise to income from hidden profits. Where the loans are granted on arm’s‑length terms and have genuine economic justification, there is no basis for treating such payments as hidden profit under Article 28m of the Corporate Income Tax Act.