Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Tax Chamber

Tax law, case I FSK1644/11

August 27th, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

A taxpayer who sold the old porcelain and books which were inherited from grandparents and parents, and bought on the antique fairs, was ordered by the Polish tax authorities to pay VAT for four years. Every year the taxpayer sold hundreds of these things, for more than three thousand PLN. Only 3089 PLN is the amount of income received during the year that is deemed as free of tax,. According to tax authorities this activity could not be regarded as a hobby, but as a professional activity, that should be taxed.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 August 2012 case file I FSK 1644/11 dismissed the complaint of the taxpayer.

Tax law, case II FSK 181/08

August 8th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 27 May 2009 case file II FSK 181/08 held that a company is allowed for depreciation of trade mark rights after the Polish Patent Office grants the right of protection.

Tax law, case I SA/Po 486/10

February 11th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań in its judgment of 22 October 2010 case file I SA/Po 486/10 held that a company that is required to send annual tax information about its employees, is also allowed to send to him or her a tax declaration in the form of electronic message (e-mail), under the condition that such e-mail is signed with the digital signature and the form of the tax declaration is preserved.

See also “E-signatures in Poland“.

Tax law, case IPPB5/423-249/10-4/PS

September 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish financial services company decided to increase sales of its services, by providing to clients and potential clients with different types of advertising materials bearing its logo. These materials are worth no more than 100 PLN each and are distributed to customers and potential customers during promotional events, sponsored events, as well as individual meetings.

The Company requested for individual tax interpretation. In its view, costs of these advertising materials could be included in cost of revenue. The Director of the Tax Chamber in Warsaw in its decision of 8 July 2010 case file IPPB5/423-249/10-4/PS ruled that in this case it is important to determine whether the disputed expenses are costs of advertising, or representation. The value of gifts does not decide whether these expenditures are deemed as advertising or representation. The circle of bestowed persons and the circumstances in which these materials were distributed are the most important factors.

The Director considered that the expenditure incurred on the purchase of low value advertising materials that were handed over to customers or potential customers in events such as public fairs, promotional events, etc. may be deemed as deductible costs within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Polish Act of 15 February 1992 on the Legal Entities’ Income Tax – LEIT – (in Polish: Ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych) consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 54, item 654 with subsequent amendments.

Article 15
1. The deductible costs shall be all costs incurred in order to derive revenues, with the exception of costs referred to in Article 16(1) Costs incurred in foreign currencies shall be converted into Polish zlotys in accordance with the average exchange rates as announced by the National Bank of Poland on the date when the cost was incurred. If costs are denominated in foreign currencies, and there is a difference in the currency exchange rates between the date of entering those costs in the books and the date of payment, those costs shall be increased or reduced, as appropriate, by the differences arising from the application of the currency selling rate as at the date of payment, set by the bank, whose services were used by the person who incurred the cost, and the application of the average exchange rate as announced by the National Bank of Poland on the date of entering the costs in the books.

In the case of the transfer of gifts of higher value to selected contractors or potential contractors in order to create the best impression, the expenditures for the purchase of these gifts have representative nature, and thus are not deductible under the Article 16(1) point 28 of the LEIT.

Tax law, case II FSK 627/09

August 30th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 August 2010 case file II FSK 627/09 held that only a registered trade mark may be depreciated. The Court ruled according to the provisions of Article 16b(1) pt. 6 of the Polish Act of 15 February 1992 on the Legal Entities’ Income Tax – LEIT – (in Polish: Ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych) consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 54, item 654 with subsequent amendments.

Art. 16b. 1. The following intangible assets, acquired and fit for commercial use as at the date of acceptance for use, shall be depreciated, subject to Article 16c:
1) the cooperative ownership right to an apartment;
2) the cooperative ownership right to commercial premises;
3) the right to a single-family house in a housing cooperative;
4) copyright or related proprietary rights;
5) licences;
6) rights to: inventions, patents, trademarks, designs;

The SAC noted although that the LEIT does not provide the definition of registered trade mark or trade mark itself. However, not the same “mark”, but right of protection to the trade mark, which must meet the criterion for classification as a property right (intangible assets), is subject to depreciation.

Tax law, case II FSK 412/08

August 8th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 28 August 2009 case file II FSK 412/08 held that in case of depreciation of trade mark rights in tax practice, according to the established case-law, it is assumed that the trade mark rights are meant only as rights to a registered trade mark, i.e. sign, in respect of which a right of protection has been granted by the Polish Patent Office. Unregistered trade marks, including the application for trade mark registration, are not deemed as such rights. Only after the registration of such a trade mark, it may be entered in the register of intangible assets and then depreciated for tax purposes.

Tax law, case III SA/Wa 25/10

July 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 5 July 2010 case file III SA/Wa 25/10 confirmed the interpretation that contracts based on providing access to websites for displaying ads should be deemed as the lease of such a website. That’s the most favorable interpretation from the perspective of the website owner and the advertising company. The first can choose a lump sum and pay 8.5% tax regardless of income. The company is not required to act as a withholding agent, who is obliged to collect withholding income tax.

See also “Tax law, case I SA/Kr 60/10“.

Tax law, case ITPP3/443-52/10/JK

July 5th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish newspaper Gazeta Prawna reports in the article entitled “Faktury papierowej nie można przechowywać w formie elektronicznej” on the individual interpretation of the Director of Tax Chamber in Bydgoszcz of 17 June 2010 No. ITPP3/443-52/10/JK regarding e-invoices. The Director explained that there is no possibility to store electronic invoices, which were issued and sent to the contractor in paper form. The tax regulations do not provide that taxpayers can store documents, copies of sales invoices issued in paper form, in electronic form, with the possibility of printing only when the need arose. On the contrary, these regulations require the taxpayer to retain copies of sales invoices and correction invoices in the original form that was created at the time of issue of the originals of these documents. In addition, there is no legal basis for the application of such a mixed-mode, in which on the one hand the invoice would be issued in paper form, and copies of invoices to be kept in the electronic form.

An entrepreneur seeking to reduce costs associated with invoicing can sign invoices issued in the electronic form with the qualified electronic signature, and after prior approval obtained from the recipient of such a document, send it via e-mail, deliver it on a CD or other electronic medium. Such system of delivery of documents that also ensures its authenticity and integrity, not only reduce the cost of billing on the drawer side, but also reduce costs of customers of such entrepreneur, and will be in accordance with the provisions governing the matter of invoicing.

The Polish Ministry of Finance treats only two types of invoices as legitimate way of billing if they could not be received personally. These are paper invoices that one may send to its customer by post or courier, or electronic, not so popular, because to use it the entrepreneurs must pay for the so-called qualified e-signature.

The Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reports in its article entitled “Zabawa w zginanie faktur” that lots of companies in Poland send invoices by e-mail in the attached file (usually scanned), because it’s faster, more convenient and cheaper. One does not pay for stamps or envelopes. There is only one problem – the tax authorities believe that it is illegal activity. In the case of tax control, a company is threaten by financial penalties.

But Polish entrepreneurs have found a solution for such unrealistic approach. The invoice that was received by e-mail is printed and bend in half. It looks like it was taken out of the envelope. There is no provision in the tax law tha would require the storage of envelopes. The tax control is not able to prove that it wasn’t printed by the issuer of the invoice and send by post or courier. Almost everyone is happy.

The Ministry of Finance respects the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court that was described in the post entitled “Tax law, case I FSK 1444/09“, but it does not mean that the Ministry agrees with legal arguments presented by the SAC. The Republic of Poland is a civil law country and there are no binding precedents. It means the every entrepreneur would have to go the same way as the one whose case ended before the SAC.

See also “Tax law, case III SA/Wa 396/10“.

Tax law, case I FSK 1444/09

May 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish entrepreneur asked the Director of the Tax Chamber in Kraków, whether the inclusion in the billing of VAT of the amount of tax charged on the purchase of goods and services on the basis of invoices and correction invoices received by e-mail or fax, not in the form of electronic invoices with digital signature, is correct. The Director ruled that such interpretation is incorrect. The Company did not agree with this decision and filed a complaint to the administrative court. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Kraków in a judgment of 17 March 2009, case file I SA/Kr 97/09 dismissed the case. The Company filed a cassation complaint. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 20 May 2010, case file I FSK 1444/09, ruled that invoices that were sent via fax or e-mail are equivalent to these sent via traditional mail. What’s more important, such invoices do not need any electronic signature.

Trade marks and taxes, case IPPB1/415-288/09-2/AG

March 12th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish taxpayer being also an entrepreneur has requested the Director of the Tax Chamber in Warsaw to issue an interpretation to a question whether by contributing a trade mark to a general partnership (ordinary partnership), he would receive a revenue that is subject to personal tax income. The right of protection for a trademark was granted by the Polish Patent Office. The taxpayer received revenue from licensing the use of that trade mark. However, he decided to form a general partnership, to which he wanted to make a contribution in a trade mark, based on its market value. The partnership would treat such trade mark as a legal and intangible asset and would make it available to other entities under a license agreement. The entrepreneur was also considering the possibility to sale his right of protection for the trade mark to another entity if the general partnership would not count it as the intangible asset.

He argued that making a contribution to a partnership, such as general or ordinary one (these are not having a status of a legal person), is not a source of revenue in personal income tax. His opinion was based on provisions of article 17(1) pt. 9 of the Polish Act of 26 July 1991 on Personal Income Tax – PITA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 80, item 350, with subsequent amendments

Revenues from financial capital shall be:
9) par value of shares (stocks) of an incorporated company or shares of a cooperative societ received in exchange for a non-financial contribution;

The Director of the Tax Chamber in Warsaw in the interpretation of 25 June 2009, no. IPPB1/415-288/09-2/AG, concluded that the contribution of a trade mark to a general partnership is considered as a sale. The value of a trade mark that was established in the partnership contract serves as a basis to set the revenue from financial capital. Therefore, according to article 14(2) pt. 1 of the PITA it is a revenue from commercial activity of a contributing person. The Director of the Tax Chamber referred to article. 4 § 1 of the Code of Commercial Companies, under which the general partnership is a partnership, which may on its own behalf acquire the rights, including real property and other property rights, to incur obligations, may sue and to be sued – it has legal capacity but not the legal personality (a private company not an incorporated one). A non-financial contribution causes a transfer the ownership of things or rights to a general partnership because the capital share of the partner shall equal the value of the contribution effectively made. From the viewpoint of the civil law regulations, it is a payable sale of things or rights. Because the general partnership has no legal personality separate from its partners, therefore is not subject to personal tax income. Only partners are subject to personal tax income in such case.

See also “Trade marks and taxes, case II FSK 1003/08” and “Trade mark law, I SA/Rz 249/09“.

Tax law, case file PO/005-1/06

May 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Tax Office in Tarnowskie Góry in its decision of 10 February 2006 case file PO/005-1/06 ruled that unconditional sharing for free of a computer program to unlimited recipients is not a civil law act, and donations send by users of such program to its creators, are not a form of payment for the use of the program. There is therefore no legal relationship between the creators of the program and its users and there is no transfer of any rights by the creator to the user, and therefore this form of activity is not subject to tax on civil law transactions.

Categories: case law | free or libre and open source software | Tax Chamber | tax law | Tax Office.

Tax law, case file PB3/GM-8213-12/06/144

May 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the letter of 10 March 2006, file PB3/GM-8213-12/06/144, published in Biuletyn Skarbowy of 2006, no 2, pp. 21-22, the Undersecretary of State of the Ministry of Finance gave the official interpretation regarding tax consequences associated with the use of free software programs, addressed to the Directors of all the Tax Offices and Chambers. This letter was issued in order to ensure uniform application of the law under article 14 § 1 point 2 of the Tax Code, to convey an explanation of article 12(1) point 2 of the Polish Act of 15 February 1992 on the Legal Entities’ Income Tax – LEIT – (in Polish: Ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych) consolidated text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 54, item 654 with subsequent amendments, on the tax consequences associated with the use of free software.

Art. 12. [General notion of revenue] 1. Revenues, subject to paragraphs 3 and 4 and Articles 13 and 14, shall be, in particular:
2) the value of things or rights received free of charge or partially free of charge, as well as the value of other free-of-charge or partially free-of-charge performances, with the exception of performances linked with utilization of fixed assets received by budgetary establishments, subsidiary undertakings of budgetary entities, public utility companies 100% owned by local government bodies or their associations from the State Treasury, local government units or their association for gratuitous management or use;

In many cases during the economic activity, taxpayers benefit for purposes of the activities of the publicly available and free of charge computer programs that are available for instance via the Internet for all users. Although most of the software for these operating systems is free, however there are exceptions in the form of commercial software. The rule, however, is that the use of such programs are not related to any fees for their purchase, or license fees.

Provision of Article 12(1) point 2 of the Act on the Legal Entities’ Income Tax recognizes as revenues, the value of obtained free-of-charge or the value of partially free-of-charge things and rights. However, article 12 (5 – 6a) of the Act on the Legal Entities’ Income Tax sets, the value of unpaid or partially-paid performances and the value of free or partially-free acquired things or rights, which are the subject of income tax.

5. The monetary value of things or rights received free of charge shall be determined in accordance with market prices applicable in trading of things or rights of the same type and quality, in particular taking into account their condition, degree of wear, as well as the time and place of obtaining them.

5a. The value of partially paid for things or rights constituting taxpayer’s revenues shall be the difference between the value of those things or rights, determined in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraph 5, and the consideration paid by the taxpayer. The provision of Article 14.3 shall apply, as appropriate.

6. The value of gratuitous performances shall be determined in the following manner:
1) if the performance concerns services included in the commercial activities of the performing party – at prices applied to other recipients;
2) if the performance concerns purchased services – at purchasing prices;
3) if the performance concerns letting the use of premises – at the equivalent of the rent that would have been due under a potential lease contract for those premises;
4) in other cases – in accordance with market prices applied in the performance of services or letting the use of things or rights of the same type and quality, taking into account their condition, degree of wear, as well as the time and place of letting them for use.

6a. The value of partially paid for performances constituting taxpayer’s revenues shall be the difference between the value of those performances, determined in accordance with the principles laid down in paragraph 6, and the consideration paid by the taxpayer. The provision of Article 14.3 shall apply, as appropriate.

The provision of article 12(1) point 2 of the Act on the Legal Entities’ Income Tax should be taken together with article 12(6) of the LEIT, which defines how the value of income from unpaid performances is determined. This is established case-by-case. For instance it may be:

the price charged to other customers – if a subject of a performance are services being a part of the business of an entity that is making the performance,
the market price that is used for the same kind of rights, taking into consideration, in particular, degree of wear, as well as the time and place of letting them for use – other than those referred to aticle 12(6) points 1-3 of the LEIT.

In the case of rights obtained free of charge, the income is determined on the basis of prices used in the market turnover of rights of the same kind, in particular, their condition and degree of use and the time and place of such use. Tax law provisions establishing the value of tax revenue for the free performances received, do not foresee a situation where appropriate performance is free for all stakeholders.

Article 12(6) of the LEIT includes cases in which there is an opportunity to compare the value of gratuitous performances to other pecuniary performances that were made by the taxpayer. The possibility of determining the value of “comparable” performances of given kind, in the case of the free software that is available to all on equal (free-of-charge/gratuitous) basis, can not be performed, and thus there is no basis for determining the value of income.

If certain performances (including the transfer of rights) are inherently free-of-charge to all taxpayers, and not an individual case that would be applicable to the individual entity, it is not allowed to establish tax revenues in connection with the occurrence of such events, as referred to article 12(1) point 2 of the LEIT. This does not mean, however, that in assessing the possible tax consequences associated with the use of such software, there is no need to examine all the circumstances connected with it. Each case therefore requires individual analysis.

These explanation of the tax consequences associated with the use of the free software, apply as appropriate to taxpayers of income tax of individuals engaged in non-agricultural economic activity (art. 14 ust. 2 pkt 8 ustawy o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych).