Individual tax rulings are intended to provide taxpayers with legal certainty and protect them from the adverse consequences of an incorrect interpretation of tax legislation. However, a question arises as to whether such protection also covers a situation in which a taxpayer complied with an incorrect tax ruling, paid tax that was not due, and subsequently, after the ruling was overturned by a court, sought a refund of the overpayment together with interest. This issue was addressed by the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, NSA) in its judgment of 3 June 2026, ref. no. II FSK 162/26, holding that the absence of an explicit provision in the Polish Tax Ordinance cannot result in the taxpayer being deprived of the protection to which they are entitled.
The case concerned an individual taxpayer who planned to sell plots of land owned by them. Before completing the sale, the taxpayer applied for an individual tax ruling in order to confirm the tax consequences of the planned transaction. The Head of the National Revenue Information Service (Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej) concluded that the sale constituted business activity and should therefore be subject to taxation.
The taxpayer subsequently sold the real estate and, despite challenging the above ruling, complied with it by paying the tax. It was only several years later that the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the ruling, finding the tax authority’s position to be incorrect. As a result, it was confirmed that the sale was not subject to taxation and that the tax paid had not been due. The taxpayer therefore applied for a determination of the tax overpayment and a refund of the tax, together with interest calculated from the date on which the tax had been paid.
The Head of the Tax Office did not dispute the existence of the overpayment and refunded the tax, but refused to pay the interest claimed. This decision was also upheld by the Director of the Tax Chamber.
In the authorities’ view, the provisions of the Polish Tax Ordinance provide for interest on tax overpayments only in the cases specified in Article 78(3) of the Tax Ordinance. This provision applies to situations in which an overpayment arose as a result of the revocation or annulment of a tax decision, but does not cover a situation in which a taxpayer complied with an individual tax ruling that was subsequently changed or overturned.
According to the tax authorities, an individual tax ruling does not constitute an administrative decision and serves exclusively a protective function. Therefore, its revocation should not constitute grounds for calculating interest on the resulting tax overpayment.
The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu), in its judgment of 23 October 2025, ref. no. I SA/Po 422/25, disagreed with the position of the tax authorities. The Court acknowledged that Article 78(3) of the Tax Ordinance does not expressly provide for interest on an overpayment arising as a result of compliance with an individual tax ruling. However, it disagreed that the absence of a specific provision automatically meant that the taxpayer had no right to interest in such circumstances.
In the WSA’s view, the purpose of interest on a tax overpayment is to compensate the taxpayer for the consequences of unlawful or incorrect actions by tax authorities, which may result in the taxpayer being deprived of the ability to use their own funds. The Court found no grounds for treating a situation in which an overpayment arose as a result of compliance with an individual tax ruling differently from a situation involving the enforcement of an unlawful tax decision. In both cases, the source of the overpayment was incorrect action by a tax authority.
The WSA also referred to the principle arising from Article 14k(1) of the Tax Ordinance, according to which compliance with an individual tax ruling cannot harm the taxpayer. In the Court’s view, denying a taxpayer the right to interest on the resulting overpayment would itself constitute such harm.
Consequently, despite the absence of an explicit provision in Article 78(3) of the Tax Ordinance, the Court considered it appropriate to apply this provision also to cases in which a taxpayer had complied with an individual tax ruling.
In its judgment of 3 June 2026, ref. no. II FSK 162/26, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeal lodged by the tax authority and upheld the WSA’s position. The Court noted that, although Article 78(3) of the Tax Ordinance does not literally cover situations involving the revocation of an individual tax ruling, the absence of such a provision constitutes an axiological gap that cannot result in the taxpayer being deprived of the protection afforded by Article 14k(1) of the Tax Ordinance.
The NSA emphasised that compliance with an individual tax ruling is, in practice, often not entirely voluntary, as disregarding such a ruling may lead to a dispute with the tax authorities and expose the taxpayer to adverse consequences. For this reason, the Court held that the identified gap should be filled by applying an analogy. This means that, where a taxpayer has complied with an incorrect individual tax ruling, they are also entitled to interest on the resulting tax overpayment from the date on which the overpayment arose.
The judgment is significant for taxpayers relying on individual tax rulings. The NSA confirmed that the protection provided under Article 14k of the Tax Ordinance cannot be limited solely to the refund of tax that was paid but was not due.
Where a taxpayer complied with an incorrect tax ruling and, as a result, was deprived of the ability to use their own funds, they should benefit from the full scope of protection provided by the law, including interest on the tax overpayment.