���㣨Leyu����������

On 21 May 2025, the Sejm reviewed the Senate's amendments to the act aimed at deregulating economic and administrative law and improving the principles of developing economic law (commonly referred to as a deregulation act). The act introduces measures to expedite administrative proceedings and simplify business operations.

The Senate proposed 35 amendments, mostly editorial, with one significant change allowing leasing contracts to be concluded electronically, including annexes to existing contracts, provided both parties consent. The act is now awaiting the President's signature.

On 20 May 2025, the Council of Ministers approved a package of legislative proposals as part of the ongoing deregulation process. These include:

1. the bill amending the PIT and CIT Acts, which aims to reduce the obligation to submit information about partners in general partnerships, introduce favourable changes for tax groups, and relax rules for tax refunds when a decision on granting support under the Polish Investment Zone or the Special Economic Zone scheme is revoked. These changes are set to take effect on 1 January 2026.
2. The bill amending  the Gift and Donation Tax Act, which proposes simplifications for recurring benefits (like annuities), effective 14 days after publication in the Polish

Journal of Laws.

Both proposals have been submitted to the Sejm for their first reading.

On 23 May 2025, an explanatory memorandum to the draft regulation for the new Polish Classification of Goods and Services (PKWiU), replacing the current 2015 version, was added to the list of legislative work and policies of the Council of Ministers. The updated classification aims to be more detailed, reflecting economic changes and aligning with international harmonized statistical classifications. Adoption by the Council of Ministers is expected in the third quarter of 2025.

On 20 May 2025, in response to a press inquiry, the Ministry of Finance clarified its stance on the IP Box relief and on its availability to sole proprietors. The Ministry explained how the costs directly related to qualified intellectual property rights (QIP) should be understood and confirmed that in terms of the relief scheme one must not rely on general cost allocation principles but must demonstrate a direct connection of a given cost to the taxpayer's R&D activities. If this connection is established, indirect costs can be considered directly related to QIP and included in the Nexus ratio calculations.

On 22 May 2025, the European Commission issued Implementing Regulation 2025/1093, laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards a list of countries that present a low or high risk of producing relevant commodities for which the relevant products do not comply with non-deforestation rules. The regulation assigns a standard risk level to all countries, but the Commission has identified specific countries that present a high or low risk. The annex to the Regulation lists low-risk countries like Italy, Germany, and Japan, and high-risk countries like Belarus and Russia. Countries not listed maintain the standard risk level.

On 22 May 2025, the Council of the European Union adopted a general approach to the regulation to facilitate the e-declaration of posted workers. The regulation is expected to reduce the administrative burden for businesses by fully digitalizing the submission of posting declarations and for national authorities by facilitating the monitoring of the compliance with the posting of workers directive. A key change in the Council’s position is the introduction of a new functionality in the public interface, allowing service providers to upload the relevant documents for posting workers.

On 22 May 2025, a clearance opinion dated 10 March 2025 (case file DKP3.8082.2.2024) regarding the division of a joint-stock company was published. The Head of the National Revenue Administration recognised that although tax benefits may arise in the analysed case, such as the non-occurrence of tax liability in CIT and PCC (tax on civil law transactions), they are not contrary to the provision or purpose of the Act, and the applicants' actions are not artificial. Furthermore, the authority accepted that obtaining the aforementioned tax benefits was not the main or one of the main goals of the actions, as the economic need for the division was properly justified by the applicants. Moreover, these benefits are a tax privilege guaranteeing the tax neutrality of the performed actions, and their purpose is to enable entrepreneurs to carry out reorganizational activities. Consequently, the Head of the National Revenue Administration issued a clearance opinion.

On 16 May 2025, information that the Head of the National Revenue Administration denied a clearance opinion of 5 May 2025 (case file DKP16.8082.14.2024) regarding a sequence of activities performed using a family foundation was published. The authority recognised that the tax consequences of the actions performed constitute tax benefits, including the absence of PIT and CIT tax collection and deferral of CIT tax liability. At the same time, the Head of the National Revenue Administration assessed that achieving these benefits was the main or one of the main goals of the activities performed and the applicant's actions were artificial. Additionally, the authority stated that the achieved tax benefits are contrary to the purpose and subject of the Act or its provision and recognised that the applicant's priority is not the succession of the currently conducted business activity, but the sale of shares relatively soon after their contribution to the family foundation using the tax exemption. Consequently, the Head of the National Revenue Administration refused to issue a clearance opinion.

Resolution No. 2/2025 of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Council dated 3 March 2025, regarding the request of the Head of the National Revenue Administration for an opinion on the applicability of the anti-tax avoidance clause (GAAR) concerning a sequence of actions related to depreciation write-offs of intangible assets was published. The Council indicated that there was no violation of Article 16(1)(64a) of the CIT Act (due to the lack of subjective identity), and the sequence of activities meets all the conditions for applying the GAAR clause. In the Council's opinion, the source of the tax benefit �� contrary to the subject and purpose of the tax law provision �� was the action of "inserting" a limited joint-stock partnership between two companies. Moreover, the analysed way of acting had an artificial character, as the taxpayer used an intermediary entity, i.e., a limited joint-stock partnership. Consequently, the Council recognised that the presented series of actions meets the statutory criteria for tax avoidance. 

In the judgement dated 15 May 2025 (case C-782/23), the CJEU accepted that the customs value of imported goods must be determined according to the transaction value method, whereas the other methods must be regarded as subsidiary methods. At the same time, the CJEU indicated that the mere fact that the final price of goods was not determined on the date of the importation of those goods into the customs territory of the European Union  is not sufficient to rule out the possibility that the customs value of those goods may be set on the basis of their transaction value, as this price seemed possible to determine at that time. Additionally, in the CJEU's opinion �� after obtaining a specific authorization �� goods can be placed under a customs procedure on the basis of a simplified declaration containing a customs value corresponding to the provisional price indicated on the pro forma invoice, followed by a supplementary declaration containing a customs value corresponding to the final price indicated on the final invoice.

In the judgement dated 21 May 2025 (case I FSK 2568/21), the Supreme Administrative Court stated that the rental of residential properties for a company providing its employees with accommodation is subject to an 8% VAT rate. In the Court's opinion, the provision of real estate by the taxpayer served to accommodate the company's employees, and that the offered accommodation was temporary, rotational, and the premises did not constitute a permanent residence for the users. It also emphasised that such a service model corresponds to the construction of accommodation services typical for employee hotels or lodging facilities, rather than services for renting residential premises for individual residential services, which justified taxation at the 8% rate.