SAC: group simplification does not deprive taxpayer of right to utilise tax losses

During the session of the Lower House of the Polish Parliament, held on 1-3 July 2026, MPs:

• passed the Act introducing a new instrument for voluntary saving and investing, the Personal Investment Account [Osobiste Konto Inwestycyjne, OKI]. Pursuant to the Act, investment assets (such as shares, bonds, and other financial instruments) will be subject to income tax exemption up to PLN 100,000, while savings assets will be exempted up to PLN 25,000. The Act now moves to the Senate. The new provisions are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2027.
• Considered the Senate’s amendments to the Act on the tax on windfall profits generated in 2026 from the manufacture and trading of certain liquid fuels. The Act provides for the introduction of a new, temporary public levy, i.e., a tax on windfall profits (or windfall tax). The windfall tax will be due from businesses that, between 1 March 2026 and 31 December 2026, pursue activities consisting in the manufacture of liquid fuels or the import/intra‑Community acquisition of liquid fuels within the territory of the Republic of Poland, either directly or through another entity. The tax rate will be 60 percent. The Act now awaits the President’s signature. New provisions are expected to enter into force on 1 August 2026.

A refusal to issue a clearance opinion dated 3 June 2026, ref. DKP16.8082.13.2025, was published. The refusal concerns the application for a clearance opinion in relation to a merger between a company holding a special economic zone (SEZ) permit and an organised part of an enterprise (ZCP) holding a support decision, carved out from a divided company. In the view of the Head of the National Revenue Administration, the application did not present arguments that would allow to conclude that the stated economic and business purposes of the transaction are decisive in justifying it, Furthermore, the authority stated that the planned sequence of transactions would not be performed for valid economic reasons (other than the attainment of a tax advantage) by a reasonably acting entity pursuing lawful objectives, but is instead driven by the intention to obtain tax benefits. Considering the above, the Head of the National Revenue Administration refused to issue clearance opinion.

In its judgment of 1 July 2026 (case file I FSK 2333/23), the Supreme Administrative Court held that a taxpayer providing hotel services as part of broader tourism services (outside the VAT margin scheme under Article 119 of the Polish VAT Act) and taxed under the standard rules retains the right to deduct VAT on purchased catering services The Court relied on the so‑called standstill clause originating from Article 176 of the VAT Directive and found that any domestic extension of deduction restrictions must not infringe the principle of VAT neutrality.

In its judgment of 1 July 2026 (case file II FSK 1041/23), the Supreme Administrative Court held that the takeover of a Polish limited partnership [spółka komandytowa] by a company that had previously been its limited partner does not deprive the taxpayer of the right to utilise losses generated by that limited partnership for the 2017 and 2020 taxable years. The Court found that the reorganisation and simplification of the group structure, in itself, did not amount to a change in the business activity. Consequently, the restriction set out in Article 7(3)(7)(a) of the CIT Act did not apply.

In its judgment of 1 July 2026 (case no. T‑361/25), the General Court of the European Union held that EU law precludes national legislation that provides for a legal fiction according to which goods are deemed to have been received in a tax warehouse and simultaneously to have departed from it, despite not being physically there. At the same time, the Court held that an exemption from excise duty cannot be refused on the sole ground that the documentation required for the movement of excise goods is missing or was drawn up or transmitted out of time if, first, it is established that those goods were used for exempt purposes and, secondly, there is no evidence capable of arousing suspicions as to the existence of tax evasion, avoidance or fraud.

Last week, the Head of the National Revenue Information Service (individual ruling no. 0114‑KDIP1‑3.4012.298.2026.1.KP) held that where a taxpayer has inadvertently transmitted to KSeF (the National e-Invoicing System) invoices issued before they became obliged to use the system, those invoices cannot simply be left in the database. Once a KSeF number has been assigned, such a document exists in legal circulation and, as the system does not allow it to be deleted or cancelled, the only way to eliminate the error is to issue a corrective invoice reducing the original invoice to zero. The authority stressed that the risk is not limited to maintaining orderly records: leaving such invoices in the system may also give rise to consequences under Article 108 of the VAT Act.