2025-10-10
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.
See other articles
Determining when a VAT liability arises in relation to services remains one of the more challenging issues in practice under Polish VAT law. Although Article 19a(1) of the Polish VAT Act clearly states that VAT becomes due when a service is performed, establishing when a service is actually “performed” sometimes requires a case-by-case assessment of the contractual model and the underlying commercial reality. Recent Polish judgment by the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 March 2026 (I FSK 1353/23) provides important clarification in the context of IT services.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).