Raft of tax bills passed by Council of Ministers

Raft of tax bills passed by Council of Ministers 

On 29 September 2026, the Council of Ministers adopted, among other measures, a bill amending the PIT, CIT, and lump‑sum tax Acts. From 2027, the limit of the first personal income tax bracket is to be increased to PLN 130,000, with the 12% rate maintained. Income between PLN 130,000 and PLN 150,000 would be taxed at a new rate of 24%, while the 32% rate would apply to income exceeding PLN 150,000. On the same day, the Council of Ministers also approved:

1. bill amending the Act on family foundations,
2. bill increasing the sugar levy,
3. bill extending the robotisation relief for a further 10 years and
4. bill amending the rules governing the Polish Investment Zone.

All of these bills are intended to enter into force on 1 January 2027.

Last week, the President signed an Act introducing a temporary windfall tax on the extraordinary profits of businesses engaged in the production and trading of fuels imported from abroad, while simultaneously referring the Act to the Constitutional Tribunal. The Act was published in the Journal of Laws on the same day. The tax will apply to the period from 1 March 2026 to 31 March 2027. The taxable base will be the excess of actual revenues over notional revenues calculated by applying the taxpayer’s average sales margin from 2025, increased by 20%. The tax rate is set at 60%. Most provisions will enter into force on 1 November 2026. However, from 2 October 2026 a provision is already in force empowering the Minister of Finance and Economy, by regulation, to reduce the excise duty rate on fuels (the power to reduce VAT already existed). The Minister has exercised these powers and issued regulations reducing both VAT and excise duty on fuels until 31 December 2026

On 1 October 2026, the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology published, on its website, the Government‑approved review of the Family Foundations Act. The document sets out practical experience with the application of the Act and recommends both legislative changes and non‑legislative measures. It was prepared by the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice. The review contains a package of several dozen proposed amendments of varying complexity, ranging from targeted clarifications (for example on representation of a family foundation in formation) to broader changes reinforcing the core objectives of the Act, such as better reflecting in the statutory text the succession purpose of family foundations. The review will now be submitted to the Sejm and the Senate.

On 1 October 2026, amendments to the Tax Code entered into force, significantly narrowing the scope of MDR (mandatory disclosure rules) to cross‑border arrangements only. VAT and excise duty have been excluded from MDR, and the obligation to have an internal MDR procedure and to file MDR‑2 notifications has been abolished. Information on the use of a reportable scheme and the resulting tax benefit will now be provided once a year, and the MDR‑3 form may be filed by an attorney. The amendments also strengthen professional privilege for advocates, legal advisers, and tax advisers. Where providing information would breach legal professional privilege, the promoter is required to inform the relevant entity of its reporting obligation, rather than disclosing the scheme directly to the authorities. At the same time, it is no longer possible to obtain individual tax rulings on the application of MDR provisions. Other simplifications include increasing from PLN 5,000 to PLN 10,000 the threshold for corrections to tax returns made by the tax authority in the course of verification activities; increasing from PLN 1,000 to PLN 5,000 the maximum amount of tax that can be paid on the taxpayer’s behalf by another person; allowing taxpayers to apply for tax remission before the payment deadline; treating a corrective return showing an overpayment, filed on or after 1 October 2026, as replacing a separate overpayment claim (if the overpayment exceeds PLN 10,000, a written explanation of the reasons for the correction is required); enabling remote (online) questioning of parties and witnesses; allowing the refund of stamp duty without issuing a formal decision where the taxpayer’s request is justified.

In a judgment of 29 September 2026 (case file II FSK 1259/24), the Supreme Administrative Court held that the provision of free accommodation to employees seconded to work in Poland does not give rise to taxable employment income. Consequently, the employer is not required to calculate or withhold PIT advances. The Court stressed that the place of work should not, in itself, be a factor that differentiates employees’ tax treatment

In its judgment of 29 September 2026 (case file II FSK 1261/23), the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that contractual penalties for late performance of services and for termination of a contract are not covered by the exclusion from tax‑deductible costs in Article 23(1)(19) PIT, provided they do not arise from defects in the services or works performed. The Court emphasised that this exclusion must be interpreted strictly and should apply only to the specific types of penalties and damages expressly listed in the provision.

In a judgment of 29 September 2026 (case file II FSK 1274/23), the Supreme Administrative Court held that, where a dividend is paid out of profits earned during the period in which a company is taxed under Estonian CIT, the PIT taxable base is the full amount of net profit allocated for distribution to shareholders. This base cannot be reduced upfront by the lump‑sum tax on company income paid by the company. The mechanism for eliminating double taxation is applied only at the stage of calculating the PIT due from the shareholder.

In another judgment of 29 September 2026 (case file II FSK 1258/23), the Supreme Administrative Court found that expenditure on the construction of a fuel terminal on land owned by a third party, incurred to meet a condition imposed by the European Commission as part of a merger approval, does not constitute tax‑deductible costs. In the Court’s view, the investment was directly linked to the consolidation process rather than to generating income or preserving or securing its source. The settlement of the outlays should therefore be treated as a reimbursement of expenses that were not recognised as tax‑deductible in the first place.