Amendments to PIT and CIT Acts: new version of bill
Last week, a bill amending the PIT Act and the CIT Act was published (the bill). Compared to the version of 16 September 2025, the latest bill brings several new solutions, including:
- exclusion of deductibility of costs treated as hidden dividend, i.e., specified services performed for CIT payers by taxpayer-related entities being natural persons;
- changes to the Estonian CIT regime (including, among others, the abolition of the possibility to choose this form of taxation during the year, the extension of the list of benefits excluded from hidden profits, and an “amnesty” for taxpayers, i.e., recognizing the effectiveness of a change of the form of taxation to Estonian CIT where the financial statements were signed by the head of the entity after the deadline, even if they were not signed by the person entrusted with keeping the accounting books);
- clarification of the rules for using the housing relief. The relief can be applied if the taxpayer has not used it in the period of three years preceding the year in which the property was sold;
- taxation at a 15% rate of rental income above PLN 100,000 (both private rental and rental within the scope of business activity) provided to related entities;
- modification of the method for determining the level of CO₂ emissions of an engine for the purposes of the limit on depreciation write‑offs on passenger cars included in tax‑deductible costs, by abandoning the central register of vehicles as the sole evidential source in this respect.
New provisions are expected to enter into force on 01 January 2027. The stage of the legislative work (in Polish) can be tracked here.
Amendments to Tax Code announced: bill published on Government Legislation Centre’s website
Last week, a new bill was published, aimed at aligning the rules of third party liability for entities’ tax arrears (Article 116 of the Polish Tax Code) to the requirements of the EU law, as confirmed by the CJEU's judgments dated 27 February 2025 (case C-277/24, Adjak) and 30 April 2025 (case C-278/24, Genzyński). In particular, the bill explicitly states the right of a third party liable for the tax arrears of a company to challenge the factual findings and legal classifications made by the tax authorities in assessment proceedings against the company, as confirmed in CJEU judgments (cases C-277/24, Adjak, and C-278/24, Genzyński), as well as the right of a third party to access the files of assessment proceedings conducted in relation to a company. The bill can be accessed here, while stages of legislative work can be tracked here.
Overview of administrative courts’ activities in 2025
Last week, a report entitled “Overview of administrative courts’ activities in 2025” [Polish: Informacja o działalności sądów administracyjnych w 2025 roku] was published.
The document shows that in 2025, 24,429 cases were filed with the Supreme Administrative Court, and a total of 73,832 cases with the voivodship administrative courts. The average waiting time for a decision was just over 17 months before the Supreme Administrative Court and just over 4 months before the provincial administrative courts. The Supreme Administrative Court adjudicated a record number of 27,693 cases, while the provincial administrative courts a total of 69,289 cases. Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court adopted 12 resolutions in extended panels.
„Informacja o działalności sądów administracyjnych w 2025 roku”
Report: Polish tax cases before CJEU, 2004-2025
The report “Polish Tax Cases before the CJEU: 2004–2025”, prepared by the LEX Editorial Team, is now available. In the report, the following topics were explored:
- the number of CJEU tax judgments to date in Polish preliminary‑ruling cases and the proportion they represent of all Polish preliminary‑ruling judgments;
- the number of CJEU judgments in Polish cases that were favourable to taxpayers, both in the last year and over the entire 2004–2025 period;
- the different categories of VAT payers concerned by judgments entered by the CJEU in Polish cases;
- the attorneys who appeared in the largest number of cases;
- the attorneys who obtained the highest number of favourable rulings for their clients;
- the law firms/companies most frequently chosen by taxpayers to represent them before the CJEU;
- the law firms/companies that were the most successful.
Raport „Polskie sprawy podatkowe przed TSUE: 2004-2025"
Clearance opinion on share swapping
Last week, a clearance opinion (ref. no. DKP3.8082.11.2025) dated 26 February 2026 was issued. It concerns a transaction involving the in-kind contribution of shares in a private limited company (sp. z o.o.) by a partner in a holding company to that holding company, in exchange for shares in the increased share capital of the holding company (i.e., a share swap). According to the Head of the National Revenue Administration, the possible tax benefits, in the form of non-occurrence of CIT, PIT and tax on civil law transactions liabilities, do not contravene the provisions or intent of tax acts. At the same time, the Head of the National Revenue Administration noted that obtaining the aforementioned tax benefits was not the main or one of the main objectives of the transaction, as its aim was to prepare the asset structure for the process of cross-generational succession, thereby facilitating family asset management. Furthermore, the applicant’s actions were not deemed artificial. Consequently, Article 119a(1) of the Tax Code was found to have no application to the tax benefits presented by the applicant. As a result, the Head of the National Revenue Administration issued a clearance opinion.
Opinia zabezpieczająca w zakresie wymiany udziałów
Clearance opinion relating to sequence of activities involving family foundation
Last week, a clearance opinion dated 12 February 2026 (ref. no. DKP2.8082.5.2025) was published. It relates to a sequence of transactions involving a family foundation, covering, inter alia: establishing a family foundation, establishing a holding and investment company, and a share contribution. The Head of the National Revenue Administration determined that the case could result in tax benefits, such as the non-arising of a CIT and PIT liabilities, as well as reduction of the tax on civil law transactions due. In the view of the Head of the National Revenue Administration, obtaining the above‑mentioned benefits was not one of the main purposes of the transactions, since the succession‑related objective (i.e. the consolidation of the family assets and safeguarding their indivisibility) and the business objective (the development of the family group’s operations and its investment plans) constitute a credible economic goal that is one of the main purposes of the planned activities. Furthermore, according to the authority, such benefits do not contradict the intent or purpose of tax law or any of its provisions and the approach adopted is not considered artificial. Consequently, Article 119a(1) of the Tax Code was found to have no application to the tax benefits presented by the applicant. As a result, the Head of the National Revenue Administration issued a clearance opinion.
Opinia zabezpieczająca w zakresie zespołu czynności z wykorzystaniem fundacji rodzinnej
Clearance opinion on sequence of transactions involving family foundation denied
Last week, it was announced that the Head of the National Revenue Administration denied a clearance opinion in case DKP3.8082.4.2025 dated 5 February 2026. The case concerned a sequence of transactions involving a family foundation, covering the establishment of a family foundation, amendments to articles of association of operating companies and a holding company, as well as the entry of the foundation as a partner in these companies. The Head of the National Revenue Administration found that these actions give rise to tax benefits (i.e., no CIT or PIT liability arising, the postponement of the CIT liability, and a reduction of the PIT and CIT liability). According to the authority, the aforementioned tax benefits contradict the purpose and/or goal of a tax statute (in particular, Article 21(1)(157) and Article 21(49) of the PIT Act) and the applicants’ actions are artificial. Consequently, Article 119a(1) of the Tax Code was found to have application to the tax benefits presented by the applicant and a clearance opinion was denied.
Another opinion of Anti-Tax Avoidance Council on structures relying on closed-end investment funds
Last week, another opinion was published by the Anti-Tax Avoidance Council regarding a series of transactions involving a closed-end investment fund (CEIF). The Council analysed a sequence of transactions including, among others:
- the sale by the CEIF of shares in a Luxembourg company to a Polish special purpose vehicle,
- the issuance of bonds by the Polish special purpose vehicles, their acquisition by the CEIF, and
- the offsetting of receivables between the CEIF and the Polish special purpose vehicle.
The Council indicated that a tax benefit arose in the form of no CIT liability arising at the level of the CEIF, due to the reclassification of sources of income, specifically, changing from the previous income from participation in a partnership (which would have been taxable) to income from interest on bonds, which is exempt from CIT. At the same time, in the Council’s view, the main, or one of the main, objectives of the actions undertaken was to obtain a tax benefit. Furthermore, the Council emphasized that the taxpayer’s arrangements were artificial (including, for example, the unjustified splitting of operations and the absence of genuine financial transfers). Additionally, the Council concluded that the tax benefit obtained is contrary to the subject matter or purpose of the tax law or the relevant provision thereof (Article 17(1)(57)(a) of the CIT Act). As a result, the Council found that Article 119a et seq. of the Polish Tax Code apply to the analysed sequence of transactions.
Uchwała nr 6/2026 Rady do Spraw Przeciwdziałania Unikaniu Opodatkowania
SAC: financing subsidiaries through loans in context of ancillary activities
According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court entered in case I FSK 1210/23, where a taxpayer performs transactions of given type as part of its business activity, such transactions cannot be regarded as occasional (ancillary), irrespective of their value or number. Transactions intended to be carried out as an element of the taxpayer’s business activity cannot be treated as occasional (ancillary). Where, under the adopted business model, a company finances its subsidiaries by granting loans, and this is currently its sole activity, that activity does not constitute ancillary activity.
SAC: provision by employer of free transport to work for employees generates employment revenue
According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in case II FSK 775/23 dated 12 March, where an employer provides free transport to work for employees performing their duties at a location not served by public transport, this gives rise to revenue from employment relationship within the meaning of Article 12(1) of the Personal Income Tax Act. Logistical difficulties arising from the location of the workplace do not provide a basis for excluding the value of this benefit from the taxable base.
CJEU: provision of healthcare services and VAT deductibility
According to the CJEU judgment of 19 March in case C-513/24, the costs incurred for the acquisition of goods and services required by national legislation for the provision of healthcare services in respect of which VAT is not deductible, but also used for the provision of services in respect of which VAT is deductible, do not constitute, on account of that statutory requirement alone, general costs in respect of which a proportion of the VAT is deductible.
CJEU’s judgment of 19 March 2026, case C-513/24
CJEU: right of deduction and technical faults in VAT refund application
According to the CJEU judgment of 12 March in case C-527/24, national legislation (as interpreted by a final judicial decision), according to which a taxable person established in a Member State other than the Member State of VAT refund is deprived of both the right to a VAT refund and the right of access to the courts so as to challenge a failure to act on the part of the tax authorities of the Member State of refund, to which that taxable person’s VAT refund application has been made, on the ground that that application cannot be considered submitted owing to a technical fault in its electronic transmission, must be interpreted as incompatible with EU law.