A draft bill amending the Tax Ordinance Act and certain other acts has been published on the website of the Government Legislation Centre. The bill primarily aims to enhance the efficiency of tax authorities, but also to improve cooperation and communication between tax authorities and taxpayers. However, despite these stated goals, not all of the proposed changes will be favourable to taxpayers—in many cases, the tax authorities stand to benefit the most.
Favourable changes—but are they really?
Let’s start with the changes that are ostensibly beneficial for taxpayers. One such proposal is the introduction of a whitelist of tax schemes that would not require reporting to the Head of the National Revenue Administration (Szef KAS). This list, to be introduced by way of a Ministry of Finance regulation, would help taxpayers determine which activities are clearly exempt from reporting obligations.
Another positive change is the proposed elimination of the obligation to implement internal procedures for preventing failures to report tax schemes, as well as the removal of the corresponding penalty. The requirement to submit MDR-2 forms would also be abolished. Meanwhile, MDR-3 forms would only need to be submitted once a year and could be signed by a proxy. However, the draft bill introduces a new penalty for failing to file the MDR-3 on time.
Penalties for non-compliance with tax scheme reporting obligations would be reduced—from a maximum of 720 daily rates to 240 daily rates. Additionally, the role of the “supporting entity” (wspomagający) would be eliminated, leaving only the “promoter” and the “user” as participants in reportable tax arrangements.
However, not all changes are positive. For instance, the draft proposes to exclude tax schemes from the scope of individual tax rulings, which would remove an important protective mechanism for taxpayers.
Tax limitations period
A key change concerns Article 70 §6 of the Tax Ordinance. Under current rules, the initiation of criminal fiscal proceedings suspends the statute of limitations for tax liabilities. The amendment would limit this suspension to cases involving tax offences of significant value (i.e., where the offence relates to an amount exceeding 200 times the minimum wage). This means that in less serious cases, the limitation period would continue to run, which could benefit taxpayers.
On the other hand, a potentially adverse change is the proposed extension of the five-year limitation period by an additional 12 months when a taxpayer files a correction to their tax return within 12 months before the limitation period expires. The government’s rationale is that the tax authorities would need additional time to examine the circumstances. This extension would give the authorities not only more time to deny a refund but also more time to impose additional tax liabilities if necessary.
Another significant and controversial change involves Article 44 §2 of the Fiscal Penal Code. Currently, the statute of limitations on tax liability also ends the possibility of prosecuting the related fiscal offence. The amendment would delete this provision, meaning that criminal charges could still be brought even if the underlying tax liability has already expired.
A new suspension ground for the limitation period is also introduced. It would apply when a taxpayer files a request to supplement a first-instance decision determining the amount of tax liability or a request to correct an order refusing to issue such a decision. The goal is to prevent taxpayers from using these requests solely to delay proceedings until the limitation period expires. Under the new rules, the limitation period would be suspended until an appeal is filed or the deadline for filing an appeal passes.
Other changes
The draft bill also includes several smaller but meaningful amendments that could benefit taxpayers, such as:
-
Raising the threshold for third-party tax payments from PLN 1,000 to PLN 5,000, to align with Article 71ca(5) of the Enforcement Proceedings in Administration Act;
-
Allowing the tax authority to remit tax before the payment deadline;
-
Expanding the use of the e-Tax Office (e-Urząd Skarbowy) to public authorities and offices that do not exercise public authority functions;
-
Eliminating the need to file a formal request for a tax refund if it is clearly indicated in the submitted tax return.
While these changes may not constitute a legislative breakthrough, they do offer practical improvements to various aspects of taxpayer interactions with the tax administration.