Newsy

The risk of a “double” invoice in KSeF – when XML and PDF don’t match

As the Polish National e-Invoicing System (KSeF) becomes more widely used, businesses are increasingly encountering a practical issue known as the “double document circulation.” This occurs when the structured invoice stored in KSeF (XML) differs from the PDF visualization sent to the customer, for example by email or through a customer portal.

In principle, visualization is meant only to make the data contained in the XML structure easier to read. In practice, however, the two documents are not always fully consistent. The problem becomes particularly serious when the PDF includes different amounts, additional line items, or elements that do not appear in the invoice recorded in KSeF.

For accounting departments and accounting firms, this creates a real dilemma. When two documents related to the same transaction present different information, the key question becomes which one should be used as the basis for accounting entries and payment. In practice, this may lead to operational errors—for example, when the procurement team registers the invoice received by email while the accounting team simultaneously retrieves the same invoice from KSeF. In extreme cases, this can result in the same transaction being recorded twice in financial systems, creating a risk of duplicate payment or overstated VAT deductions.

Two main causes are typically identified for such discrepancies. The first involves simplifications introduced by some invoice issuers. In practice, this is sometimes justified by technical limitations of XML files, for example when invoices contain a very large number of line items. The second relates to IT implementation issues—particularly incorrect data conversion processes that result in the PDF visualization not fully reflecting the information contained in the XML structure.

Regardless of the underlying cause, the outcome is the same: the risk of parallel document circulation increases. In practice, a single sale may end up being documented in two different ways—once as a structured invoice in KSeF and again as a PDF document circulating outside the system.

For this reason, there are growing calls for the Ministry of Finance to clarify the rules. Clear guidance on the relationship between
a structured invoice and its visualization could reduce uncertainty for businesses and accounting teams and prevent situations in which two different versions of the same document circulate simultaneously in the market.

Zamknij

Invoice timing and the right to deduct VAT – EU General Court challenges Polish rules

On 11 February, the EU General Court (Case T-689/24) delivered an important judgment in a “Polish case” on the moment of input VAT deduction. The ruling may have far-reaching consequences for Polish businesses and the way VAT is settled in Poland.

The essence of the judgment

The EU General Court held that the VAT Directive precludes national rules that make the input VAT deduction dependent from the date the purchase invoice is received. Under EU law, the right to deduct arises at the time the chargeable event occurs — i.e. when the goods are supplied or the services are performed.

Holding an invoice is a formal requirement for exercising that right, yet it does not determine when the right itself comes into existence. In practical terms, if a taxpayer has met the substantive conditions for deduction (the transaction actually took place, VAT was properly charged, and the purchase is used for taxable activities) and received the invoice before filing the VAT return for the relevant period, the deduction should be available in that period. Even if the invoice had been received after the end of that calendar period.

A practical example, based on Polish monthly VAT-reporting rules

Assume a transaction took place in February, and the invoice was received on 15 March. The deadline for filing the February VAT return is 25 March.

Under current Polish regulations and practice, the taxpayer could deduct the input VAT only in March, since that is when the invoice was received. Following the General Court’s judgment, this approach is incompatible with the VAT Directive. Since the chargeable event occurred in February and the invoice was received before the February return was filed, the deduction should be available in February.

Tension with Polish legislation

Polish rules explicitly linking the input VAT deduction to the date of receipt of the invoice are unfavorable for taxpayers, since it worsens their cash-flow. In practice, this shifts the right to deduct to a later reporting period, even where the taxpayer held the invoice before the filing deadline. On one hand, Polish regulations allow to issue a sales invoice (holding the buyer’s input VAT) till the 15^th of the following month. On the other hand, the seller is obligated to report output VAT in the month of sale, while the buyer is only allowed to deduct input VAT at a later month.

The judgment challenges this framework. The Court clearly distinguished between the moment the right to deduct arises (a substantive matter) and the formal conditions for exercising it. Member States may not introduce rules that effectively alter the moment that right comes into existence where all substantive requirements under
the Directive are met.

Implications for businesses
The ruling is highly significant in practice. First, it may require amendments to Polish VAT legislation to ensure full compliance with EU law. Second, it opens the door to earlier VAT deductions – directly improving companies’ cash flow. Since the implementation of structured xml-invoicing in Poland (February/April 2026) eliminates the practice, in which a seller could mention an earlier date on the invoice (e.g. issuing a PDF-invoice on March 3rd, yet dated February 28th), thus creating a chance for a quicker input VAT deduction, this ruling seems to be a blessing. In an environment of rising financing costs and increasing pressure on liquidity, accelerating a VAT deduction by even one month can have a measurable economic impact.

What’s next?
In the coming months, we can expect discussions on aligning domestic provisions with EU standards. Taxpayers may also consider revisiting prior VAT settlements and, relying directly on the VAT Directive and the Court’s judgment, seek to assert their right to earlier deductions.
The ruling reaffirms that, in the balance between domestic formalism and the substantive right to deduct, the principle of VAT neutrality prevails. In practice, this may mark a meaningful shift in how input VAT is accounted for — and potentially set a new standard in the Polish VAT system.

Zamknij

Invoice Issued Outside KSeF and Tax-Deductible Costs. Key Position of the Polish tax administration.

Individual tax ruling of 9 January 2026, ref. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.714.2025.2.JG In an individual tax ruling dated 9 January 2026, the Director of the Polish National Revenue Information (KIS) addressed an issue that has raised significant practical concerns in the context of the implementation of the National e-Invoicing System (KSeF). The key question was whether an expense documented by an invoice issued outside the KSeF-system may be treated as a tax-deductible cost for the purposes of Polish corporate income tax (CIT).

The authority indicated that the mere fact that an invoice was issued outside KSeF does not automatically deprive tax-deductible costs, provided that the substantive requirements under the Polish CIT Act are met in the specific factual circumstances.

Conditions for recognizing an expense as tax-deductible – Article 15 of the Polish CIT Act

Under Article 15(1) of the Polish CIT Act, tax-deductible costs are expenses incurred in order to generate revenue or to preserve or secure a source of revenue – except for those expressly listed in Article 16(1).

In practice, for an expense to be recognized as tax-deductible, the following substantive and evidentiary conditions must be met jointly:

there must be a genuine cause-and-effect link between the expense incurred and the revenue (or its source),
the expense must not fall within the statutory catalogue of exclusions,
the transaction must be properly documented.

The authority emphasized that the actual nature of the transaction and its connection with revenue-generating activities are of primary importance. A purely formal aspect — such as the technical method of issuing the invoice — does not automatically determine whether the expense is deductible.

Documentation of costs and the form of the invoice

As a rule, the Polish CIT Act does not contain detailed provisions specifying the exact form in which expenses must be documented. However, pursuant to Article 9(1), taxpayers are required to maintain accounting records in a manner that allows to properly determine:

taxable income (or loss),
tax base,
tax due.

In practice, this means that taxpayers must hold reliable and credible accounting evidence confirming that a specific business transaction has taken place.

The individual tax ruling confirmed that:

a paper invoice,
an electronic invoice (e.g. in PDF format),
a structured invoice,

— may constitute a valid basis for recognizing a tax-deductible expense, even if it was issued outside KSeF. However, provided that it meets formal requirements and reflects a genuine transaction between identifiable parties.

Accordingly, in the context of this ruling, greater weight was attached to the substance and reliability of the document than to the technical channel through which it was issued.

Practical implications of the ruling

The ruling of 9 January 2026 neither abolishes nor limits the obligations arising from the regulations governing the operation of KSeF. Any failure to comply with e-invoicing requirements may give rise to separate formal consequences.

At the same time, the authority made it clear that the failure to issue an invoice through KSeF does not automatically result in the loss of the right to recognize the related expense as tax-deductible for CIT purposes.

From a practical standpoint, this confirms a fundamental principle applicable in income taxation: the right to deduct a cost is determined by substantive criteria and the genuine nature of the transaction, not solely by technical requirements relating to the form of the document.

In the context of the full rollout of KSeF, this ruling may serve as a relevant interpretative reference for taxpayers and advisors assessing CIT risks related to invoicing compliance.

Zamknij

KSeF and foreign entities: when the use of a Polish VAT number triggers mandatory e-invoicing

The introduction of the mandatory Polish e-invoicing system (Krajowy System e-Faktur – KSeF) as of 1 February 2026 will significantly change VAT invoicing rules, i.a. transactions involving foreign entities. One of the key factors determining whether mandatory KSeF applies is whether a foreign counterparty has a fixed establishment (FE) in Poland. If it is lacking on the seller’s side, then he may issue and send invoices outside KSeF (e.g. via e-mail, PDF). If the seller is subject to KSeF yet his buyer is not (lacking seat/FE in Poland), then the seller must issue the invoice via KSeF, yet simultaneously send it to his buyer in the old-fashioned way.

The concept of a FE itself has not changed. It has long been part of the VAT system and has been extensively addressed in the European case law. What has changed is the practical relevance of FE in the KSeF environment. The latest tax authorities’ explanatory notes (issued on January 28^th) introduce certain legal assumptions as to whether the seller may assume the invoice exchange via KSeF to be sufficient (i.e. no separate e-mails/PDF’s needed).

According to the explanatory notes, a Polish supplier is not required to carry out an in-depth assessment of whether a foreign customer actually has a FE in Poland in a substantive VAT sense. For the purposes of determining the correct invoicing method, the supplier may rely on formal and objectively verifiable criteria.

In this context, particular importance is attached to the use of a Polish VAT identification number by the foreign buyer. The mere allocation of a Polish VAT number does not, in itself, determine the existence of a FE. However, where a foreign counterparty (i) uses a Polish VAT number in a specific transaction yet (ii) does not provide the supplier with a statement confirming the lack of a Polish FE involved in that transaction, the Polish supplier may assume that such FE exists and is involved. As a result, the invoice may be issued exclusively via KSeF, with no obligation on the seller’s side to make it available to the buyer outside the system.

This presumption is procedural in nature and is intended to protect the Polish supplier when selecting the appropriate invoicing model. It does not determine whether a FE actually, nor does it conclusively qualify the foreign entity’s structure for VAT purposes. Nevertheless, the absence of a statement from the foreign B2B-buyer operates to its disadvantage, regardless of whether its presence in Poland is operational or purely auxiliary.

The explanatory notes further clarify that the mere existence of an office, branch or administrative facilities in Poland does not automatically give rise to a FE, provided that such structures do not actually participate in the supply of goods or the provision of services. The autonomous nature of the FE concept also means that the existence of a “permanent establishment” for corporate income tax purposes, or capital links with Polish entities, is not decisive for VAT purposes.

From the perspective of Polish suppliers, this approach increases legal certainty and stabilises invoicing processes by removing the need for a detailed, case-by-case verification of the foreign counterparty’s status. However, for foreign entities holding and using a Polish VAT number, it means that information relating to the existence or non-existence of a fixed establishment must be actively managed in relations with Polish suppliers. The absence of appropriate procedures and failure to submit no-FE statements may result in invoices being issued solely through KSeF.

In this sense, the explanatory notes give the concept of a fixed establishment a distinctly practical dimension. In the KSeF environment, using a Polish VAT number without an appropriate statement may result in a transaction being brought within the KSeF regime, regardless of the foreign entity’s actual operating model.

In practice, this requires foreign companies to consciously manage the risks associated with having a potential fixed establishment in Poland and to align their internal procedures with the requirements of KSeF. This includes, in particular, reviewing the operating model from an FE perspective, preparing and using no-FE statements or statements confirming the lack of FE involvement in specific transactions, and properly structuring invoicing rules and communication with Polish counterparties. In the worst-case-scenario, they might lose access to their Polish purchase invoices, which in turn could cause issues with crucial payments (e.g. energy).

Zamknij

Property tax after the general ruling – clarifying the rules or drawing new battle lines?

The general tax ruling issued by the Polish Minister of Finance and Economy on 27th of November 2025 addresses the issue of land, buildings and structures being deemed as “related to business activity”. It is one of the most significant documents in recent years in the area of property taxation. Its importance goes well beyond a purely technical explanation of statutory provisions. At its core, it touches on a fundamental and long-running dispute between taxpayers and tax authorities: where the line should be drawn between mere ownership of real estate and its use for business purposes.

The stated aim of the ruling was to bring order to a practice that, for years, had been marked by excessive automatism. In many cases, the mere fact that a property was owned by an entrepreneur was sufficient to justify the application of the highest property tax rates, regardless of whether the property actually served any business function. The new position adopted by the Polish financial administration significantly recalibrates this approach – although it does not eliminate all problems.

From “owner status” to a genuine link with business activity

For a long time, the prevailing assumption was that if a taxpayer carried on a business, his/her entire real estate portfolio should be regarded as connected with that business. This interpretation was convenient for the authorities, but increasingly challenged by Polish administrative courts and the Constitutional Tribunal. Case law consistently stressed that local taxes, as public-law burdens, must remain in a rational relationship to the actual manner in which property is used.

The general ruling clearly aligns with this line of reasoning. Rather than relying solely on the formal criterion of who-owns-the-property, it shifts the focus towards a functional analysis: whether, and in what way, a given property serves business activity, either at present or in a reasonably foreseeable future.

Three models for classifying real estate

To structure the assessment, the Minister of Finance and Economy identified three basic scenarios in which the link between real estate and business activity should be examined.

The first model covers entities whose activity is exclusively commercial in nature, such as capital companies and other legal persons established to carry out profit-aimed operations. In their case, a presumption applies that the real estate they own is related to business activity, even if it is not currently generating income or being actively used. What matters here is the overall business profile of the entity, rather than the temporary manner in which a specific property is used.

At the same time, the ruling qualifies this presumption by using the phrase “as a rule,” suggesting that exceptions may exist. However, the absence of any detailed guidance on such exceptions means that the boundaries of this presumption remain blurred and may give rise to further disputes.

The second model concerns taxpayers operating in a so-called dual role, combining business activity with other, non-commercial, pursuits, whether private or statutory. This group includes, in particular, individuals running sole proprietorships, as well as foundations, associations and other entities for which business activity is ancillary. In these cases, the ruling clearly rejects the automatic application of the highest tax rate to the entire property portfolio. Business property taxation is limited to those assets that are actually used for business or that remain in a clear, functional relationship with it.

The third model addresses situations in which a property is used in the business activity of another entity, for example under a lease or tenancy arrangement. The interpretation emphasizes that the mere fact that a property is used by an entrepreneur does not determine its tax classification. What is decisive is the status of the owner and whether, on their side, there is a business activity with which the property can be linked.

Actual use versus preparation for future activity

One of the more practical aspects of the ruling is the distinction it draws between the actual use of a property and its maintenance or preparation for future business purposes. According to the Minister, a connection with business activity may also exist where a property is not currently in use but remains at an investment, redevelopment or safeguarding stage, provided that the taxpayer is taking evident steps aimed at its future commercial use.

At the same time, the ruling clearly distances itself from the notion of purely hypothetical usefulness. The mere abstract possibility that a property could be used in a business, unsupported by any tangible actions on the part of the taxpayer, should not justify the application of the highest property tax rates.

Practical implications for taxpayers

From the taxpayers’ perspective, the general ruling strengthens arguments against overly aggressive taxation, particularly for individuals and entities with a mixed activity profile. At the same time, it does not put an end to all disputes—especially where the analysis relies on open-ended concepts such as a “functional link” or “preparation for business activity.”

In practice, the document should prompt taxpayers to take a critical look at their real estate holdings, reassess how individual properties are used, and ensure that relevant circumstances are properly documented. For many entities, this may affect not only current tax settlements, but also the assessment of whether corrections to property tax liabilities for prior years are justified.

Zamknij

It may be worth seeking your own Polish tax ruling on invoices issued outside Poland’s e-Invoicing System (KSeF)

Even though penalties for issuing invoices outside Poland’s National e-Invoicing System (KSeF) have been deferred until 1 January 2027, the real headache may come sooner.

In 2026, plenty of “traditional” invoices (e.g., PDFs sent by email) will likely still be in circulation in Poland – some due to lack of awareness, some because of a misinterpretation of the rules, and some simply out of habit. For buyers, that’s not just an operational nuisance; it can also create Polish tax exposure.

In practice, a buyer may be left without clear answers to two basic questions:

• Why wasn’t the invoice submitted to Poland’s KSeF?

• Does it still allow the buyer to deduct Polish VAT and/or treat the expense as tax-deductible for Polish CIT/PIT purposes?

The uncertainty is compounded by the monthly PLN 10,000 gross threshold for invoices issued outside KSeF. A seller loses the right to invoice outside KSeF starting with the invoice that pushes them over the limit. From a buyer’s perspective, it may be impossible to tell whether the invoice they received should already have been issued via KSeF or whether it still falls within the “allowed” threshold. Cross-border transactions add another layer of complexity—especially when the key issue is whether a foreign counterparty has a “fixed establishment” in Poland. That assessment is often not straightforward, and it’s easy to get wrong.

On the VAT side, some comfort comes from individual rulings issued by the Head of Poland’s National Tax Information (DKIS) (e.g. case 0114-KDIP1-3.4012.838.2024.1.MPA and 0114-KDIP1-3.4012.507.2025.1.JG). These indicate that VAT deduction may still be possible where the invoice reflects a genuine transaction connected with taxable activity – even if, in theory, it should have gone through KSeF.

That said, tax authority practice can be inconsistent. So where significant amounts are involved, purchases are recurring, or counterparties are “hard cases”, it may be sensible to apply for your own individual ruling to secure protection tailored to your specific activity in Poland.

The biggest open question remains Polish tax-deductible costs (CIT/PIT) – there is still no clear guidance from either DKIS or the Ministry of Finance. All the more reason to consider an individual ruling in your specific case.

Zamknij

When can contractual penalties for delays be tax-deductible in Polish Corporate Income Tax (CIT)?

The Court held that, in certain circumstances, contractual penalties for delays may qualify as tax-deductible in Polish CIT. The case concerned a property developer unable to hand over apartments to clients in time, due to delays caused by the general contractor. The clients charged contractual penalties, which the developer has paid and qualified as tax-deductible costs. The Polish tax authority (KIS) argued that any penalty for non-performance or improper performance is excluded from tax costs under Art. 16(1)(22) of the Polish CIT Act. The Polish Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) disagreed.

The Court held that, in certain circumstances, contractual penalties for delays may qualify as tax-deductible in Polish CIT.
The case concerned a property developer unable to hand over apartments to clients in time, due to delays caused by the general contractor. The clients charged contractual penalties, which the developer has paid and qualified as tax-deductible costs. The Polish tax authority (KIS) argued that any penalty for non-performance or improper performance is excluded from tax costs under Art. 16(1)(22) of the Polish CIT Act. The Polish Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) disagreed.

The Court stressed that this provision is an exception to the rule and thus must be interpreted precisely. According to the judges, it only covers penalties related to defective performance and to delays for which the taxpayer is at fault (for example, failure to remedy defects within the agreed timeframe). Crucially, the Court distinguished between:
• a delay caused by circumstances within the taxpayer’s control (where the taxpayer can be blamed), and
• a delay resulting from circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control (where the taxpayer is not at fault).

Only the first category falls within the statutory exclusion. A contractual penalty for a delay not attributable to the taxpayer’s fault may therefore be recognized as a tax-deductible cost – provided it still meets the general test required by Art. 15(1) of the Polish CIT Act, i.e. the cost is linked to earning, preserving or securing taxable income.

What does this mean in practice for businesses in Poland?
• carefully document the reasons for any delay,
• be clear whether the delay was within or outside your control,
• show how paying the penalty helps protect or secure your revenue (e.g. good relationship with a key client).

This is another taxpayer-friendly ruling under Polish law – and a good reminder to revisit your contracts and penalty clauses before the tax office does.

Zamknij

TP true-ups under VAT? CJEU on 4 Sep 2025

CJEU: Is a TP profit true-up a service? Key takeaways from 4 Sep 2025 (C-726/23, Arcomet) The Court held that intra-group payments determined under TNMM (e.g., skimming part of a subsidiary’s operating margin above a threshold) can be deemed as consideration for services and thus fall within VAT—if there is a legal relationship and a direct link between the supply and the consideration.

In Arcomet, the slice of operating margin above 2.74% was treated as remuneration for actual head-office services.

Why this matters For years, year-end TP adjustments were often seen as “purely accounting” and VAT-neutral. Arcomet ends that automatic presumption: if the true-up reflects concrete activities (management, procurement, finance, engineering), it’s a taxable supply. Not every adjustment triggers VAT—facts and contracts decide.

What the Court actually said

• Qualification. A TNMM-based payment may be a service fee where the legal-relationship/direct-link test is met.

• Evidence. Authorities may request documents beyond the invoice to prove the service existed and was used—subject to proportionality.

• Input VAT. No refusal merely because an expense seems “unnecessary”; what matters is the use for taxed output transactions (see also Weatherford Atlas Gip, C-527/23). Wider context

• Högkullen (C-808/23, 3 Jul 2025): valuing intra-group services by reference to open market value (Arts. 72/80 VAT Directive); don’t assume a bundled single service without analysis.

• Tauritus (C-782/23, 15 May 2025): post-transaction price adjustments may affect customs value—watch the TP–VAT–customs interplay.

What to do—practical and simple

1. Label the adjustment. Is it a mere accounting equalisation (no services) or top-up for identified activities? If the latter, VAT rules apply.

2. Invoice, not a credit/debit note (if it’s a service). Determine place of supply and account for reverse charge/import of services where relevant.

3. Make contracts and TP policy explicit. Define roles, risks, scope of support and TNMM mechanics (ranges, direction of flows) to evidence the supply ↔ consideration link.

4. Document the service (“substance”). Show what was done (scope, deliverables), by whom (teams/skills), when (timeline/time-sheets), how it was used (deployments, processes), and the business effect (KPIs).

5. Unbundle. Where feasible, separate management/IT/HR, etc., and benchmark components—aligned with Högkullen.

6. Sync VAT–CIT–customs. Ensure the TP story matches invoicing and assess any customs-value impact (Tauritus).

Poland angle

With the Ministry of Finance and KAS launching new units in Aug 2025 to step up scrutiny, expect closer reviews of intra-group settlements—including the VAT treatment of TP adjustments.

Bottom line

Arcomet doesn’t make every TP true-up taxable. It sets a clear test: where the adjustment genuinely remunerates services, VAT is in play. Strong contracts, proper invoicing, and solid evidence of substance are your best defence.

Zamknij

When is land really „undeveloped” for VAT?

Is a plot of land with a building scheduled for demolition considered ‘undeveloped land’? Under the Polish VAT Act, the sale of undeveloped land is exempt from VAT as long as it does not have the status of ‘building land’. Otherwise, such sale might be subject to 23% VAT. In contrast, the VAT on a sale of a developed plot of land is determined based on the history of the buildings/structures. In general: older buildings = VAT-exemption. A recurring question, however, is how to classify land where there are buildings or structures in poor condition that are intended to be demolished. Can such a property still be treated as “developed” for VAT purposes? The question might seem irrelevant, yet there is another layer to it. According to Polish tax law, if the sale of immovable property (plot, building) is not subject to VAT at all or is VAT-exempt, the buyer must pay a 2% tax on civil law transactions (Podatek od czynnosci cywilnoprawnych, also known as PCC). Thus, many B2B-sales aim at having the transaction taxed with VAT (deductible) to avoid PCC (non-deductible).

Is a plot of land with a building scheduled for demolition considered ‘undeveloped land’?

Under the Polish VAT Act, the sale of undeveloped land is exempt from VAT as long as it does not have the status of ‘building land’. Otherwise, such sale might be subject to 23% VAT. In contrast, the VAT on a sale of a developed plot of land is determined based on the history of the buildings/structures. In general: older buildings = VAT-exemption.
A recurring question, however, is how to classify land where there are buildings or structures in poor condition that are intended to be demolished. Can such a property still be treated as “developed” for VAT purposes?
The question might seem irrelevant, yet there is another layer to it. According to Polish tax law, if the sale of immovable property (plot, building) is not subject to VAT at all or is VAT-exempt, the buyer must pay a 2% tax on civil law transactions (Podatek od czynnosci cywilnoprawnych, also known as PCC). Thus, many B2B-sales aim at having the transaction taxed with VAT (deductible) to avoid PCC (non-deductible).

Polish court rulings
The Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) has consistently held that holding a demolition permit is not enough to treat the land as ‘undeveloped’. Until demolition work has actually begun, the property remains ‘developed’. This was confirmed, for example, in a judgment of 19 June 2015 (case no. I FSK 818/14). Therefore, only the actual commencement of demolition can change the VAT treatment.

Tax authority practice
The Polish tax authorities share this view. In an individual ruling of 6 October 2021 (ref. 0111-KDIB3-3.4012.405.2021.2.JSU), they stressed that even buildings that are unfit for use and destined solely for demolition still make the land ‘developed’ – until they are removed. A later ruling from 22 July 2024 (ref. 0111-KDIB3-3.4012.153.2024.3.PJ) confirmed that merely obtaining project documentation and demolition permits does not change the status of the land if no demolition work has started before the sale.

EU perspective
The European court (CJEU), in its fundamental judgment of 19 November 2009 (C-461/08, Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV), added an important nuance. It held that if the seller undertakes demolition and works start before the transaction, the said buildings may be disregarded for VAT and the supply must be treated as the sale of undeveloped land.

Key takeaways
Demolition started before the sale → sale treated as the sale of ‘undeveloped’ land.
Only a demolition permit, no works prior to the sale → still considered ‘developed’ land.

In short: under Polish VAT law, what matters is the timing of the demolition work. Neither the poor technical condition of the buildings nor the plans for their demolish are decisive. If you wish to avoid paying PCC on a B2B-purchase, sometimes the best solution might be to pay (and later deduct) VAT on the purchase of ‘undeveloped’ land.

Zamknij

Poland’s e-Invoicing Revolution – KSeF 2026

KSeF 2.0 is here – the President of Poland has signed the bill! On August 27, 2025, the President approved amendments to the VAT Act introducing the new version of the National e-Invoicing System (KSeF). This marks one of the most significant tax reforms in recent years – transforming how every Polish company or entrepreneur issues and processes invoices.

KSeF 2.0 is here – the President of Poland has signed the bill!
On August 27, 2025, the President approved amendments to the VAT Act introducing the new version of the National e-Invoicing System (KSeF).
This marks one of the most significant tax reforms in recent years – transforming how every Polish company or entrepreneur issues and processes invoices.

KSeF rollout schedule
• February 1, 2026 – mandatory for entities with 2025 sales above PLN 200M (incl. VAT)
• April 1, 2026 – mandatory for other businesses
• January 1, 2027 – exception for micro-enterprises (monthly invoiced sales ≤ PLN 10K)

What’s new in KSeF 2.0
• “offline24” mode – a business may issue invoices outside the system, as long as they are uploaded to KSeF till the end of the next business day.
• Invoice attachments – the option to attach documents directly to invoices (hint: requires prior request).
• KSeF certificates – available from November 1, 2025, essential for authentication and offline mode.
• VAT corrections – the timing of submission to KSeF will at most times determine when VAT adjustments are to be made.

Who is exempt?
Foreign businesses registered for Polish VAT without a “fixed establishment” in Poland are not required to use KSeF.
Still, they may opt in voluntarily – for example, if requested by key Polish clients.

What does this mean for Polish business?
• Invoicing will become fully digital and centrally recorded, similar to Italy (as from 2020)
• KSeF 2.0 is more than just another compliance requirement – it’s a fundamental shift in how invoicing works across Poland.

Zamknij

Articles

The risk of a “double” invoice in KSeF – when XML and PDF don’t match

Invoice timing and the right to deduct VAT – EU General Court challenges Polish rules

On 11 February, the EU General Court (Case T-689/24) delivered an important judgment in a “Polish case” on the moment of input VAT deduction. The ruling may have far-reaching consequences for Polish businesses and the way VAT is settled in Poland.

Invoice Issued Outside KSeF and Tax-Deductible Costs. Key Position of the Polish tax administration.

KSeF and foreign entities: when the use of a Polish VAT number triggers mandatory e-invoicing

Property tax after the general ruling – clarifying the rules or drawing new battle lines?

It may be worth seeking your own Polish tax ruling on invoices issued outside Poland’s e-Invoicing System (KSeF)

Even though penalties for issuing invoices outside Poland’s National e-Invoicing System (KSeF) have been deferred until 1 January 2027, the real headache may come sooner.

When can contractual penalties for delays be tax-deductible in Polish Corporate Income Tax (CIT)?

TP true-ups under VAT? CJEU on 4 Sep 2025

When is land really „undeveloped” for VAT?

Poland’s e-Invoicing Revolution – KSeF 2026

Newsy