Month: January 2024
Home2024January

Month: January 2024

Anticipating the Fiscal Landscape of 2024: Limited Tax Adjustments Expected

In recent times, the commencement of each new year has often heralded a barrage of tax law modifications, with new regulations swiftly introduced and taking effect in a short span after their announcement. The initial weeks of the year were typically dedicated to scrutinizing extensive guides and summaries of these changes, with businesses and tax professionals grappling to comprehend and adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape.

A Departure from the Norm in 2024

Contrary to this pattern, the dawn of 2024 brings about a departure from the norm. The year unfolds with a noticeable reduction in the volume of tax law amendments. Entrepreneurs and tax practitioners are not thrust into the customary routine of delving into copious guides and dissecting changing regulations. While there may not be a sweeping revolution in tax law comparable to initiatives like the Polish Deal (Polski Ład), the challenges for businesses in the coming year are by no means trivial.

National e-Invoicing System Takes Center Stage

A pivotal moment on the horizon is the implementation of the National e-Invoice System in July. Companies are tasked with the imperative of constructing, adjusting, and integrating their accounting systems to facilitate the issuance and transmission of invoices under the KSeF framework. This undertaking extends beyond mere adjustments to accounting systems, necessitating updates to invoicing processes, procedures, contracts, and ancillary documents. Entrepreneurs and tax professionals bear the brunt of this substantial workload in preparation for the imminent shift.

Quality Concerns Surrounding Tax Legislation

As 2024 unfolds, a new government and leadership in the Ministry of Finance instill a sense of optimism. The absence of proclamations heralding a tax system revolution engenders hope for heightened stability and predictability. This shift is particularly significant given the tumultuous preceding years marked by erratic and superfluous changes, which posed obstacles to sound business decision-making. Businesses are optimistic that the new leadership will prioritize the rights and interests of entrepreneurs, fostering a more inclusive debate on business needs and expectations. The anticipated legislative measures should aim at creating an environment conducive to business development, moving beyond a mere focus on maximizing the tax burden.

Navigating the Agenda

The credibility of these commitments will be subjected to scrutiny during deliberations on crucial business-related issues. Topics such as the restructuring of health insurance premium payment systems for entrepreneurs and the reversion to lump-sum contributions, along with the collaborative development of new definitions for property taxation purposes, will test the government’s resolve. The existing definition of structures, deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal, is set to expire at the end of the year. Equally pivotal will be the enactment of legislation aligning with the EU directive on the global minimum tax for corporations, impacting larger companies.

A Time for Strategic Evaluation

As we step into 2024, it should serve as an occasion for contemplation on rectifying flawed tax legislation, eliminating unnecessary ambiguities, and streamlining onerous reporting and procedural requirements. The overarching objective should be refinement rather than revolution in the tax system, addressing pertinent changes without disrupting the overall fiscal landscape.

The duty to enable the restoration of a deadline arising from the provisions of material tax law – the normative and axiological context of law and court judgments. Warsaw, January 10, 2024.

In the case of our client, the administrative court confirmed that the restoration of deadlines in tax law is not only permissible but even obligatory. It appears to be one of the most important judgments issued by Polish administrative courts in recent times.

According to the court in tax proceedings regarding the correctness of a taxpayer’s use of a 6-month deadline to report the acquisition of property or property rights to the competent head of the tax office, the tax authority is obliged – if a failure to meet the deadline for submission is identified – to enable the taxpayer to restore the deadline.

The basis for such a claim is Article 15zzzzzn[2] of the Act of March 2, 2020, on special solutions related to preventing, combating, and combating COVID-19, other infectious diseases, and crises caused by them.

According to the court, in the event of a taxpayer’s failure during the state of epidemic declared due to COVID-19 in the period of performing actions shaping his rights and obligations, this provision imposes an obligation on the tax authority to:

  • inform the taxpayer about this failure, and additionally
  • designate a 30-day period for the taxpayer to submit a request for the restoration of the deadline.

This means that the tax authority has a normative obligation to enable the taxpayer to apply for the restoration of the deadline ex officio. Usually, the taxpayer (party to the proceedings) must independently initiate the appropriate procedure to take advantage of the possibility of restoring the deadline. This time, however, it is the opposite.

The state of epidemic was declared on March 20, 2020, and revoked on May 16, 2022. If the state of epidemic occurred during the expiration of the deadline for a particular taxpayer resulting from Article 4a(1)(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, then the aforementioned Article 15zzzzzn[2] of the Act of March 2, 2020, will apply. This provision also applies in the situation of a failure to meet deadlines arising from tax law. Based on this, it can be assumed that the possibility of restoring the deadline in the above manner also applies to other cases regulated by other tax laws.

The court pointed out that the interpretation conducted in the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court under file no. I FPS 2/22 does not concern the above, especially since its reasoning stated that “when the legislator used the phrase ‘provided for by provisions of administrative law,’ understanding this provision in a way that puts the taxpayer at a disadvantage is inadmissible.” Therefore, both the normative and axiological context of the aforementioned resolution should be taken into account. Based on this, it can be assumed that the possibility of restoring the deadline in the above manner also applies to other cases regulated by other tax laws.

Bernard Łukomski
Legal Counsel
Tax Advisor
tel. +48608093541
WhatsApp +48 692 802 229