Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: tax law

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 I SA/Łd 657/12

August 2nd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź in its judgment of 29 June 2012 case file I SA/Łd 657/12 held that the agreement that provides the website to use for advertisers is deemed as the unnamed contract and is similar in its provisions to a contract of tenancy as defined in the Article 693 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with subsequent amendments.

Article 693. § 1. By a contract of tenancy, the landlord shall assume the obligation to give a thing to the tenant for use and the collection of fruits for definite or indefinite time, and the tenant shall assume the obligation to pay to the landlord the rent agreed upon.

The Court decided that the income from advertising should be taxed like tenancy contracts or leases, which allows a taxpayer to choose a lump sum settlement on registered revenues.

Tax law, case II FSK 1548/10

April 2nd, 2012, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 9 March 2012 case file II FSK 1548/10 ruled that an agreement concluded between the advertiser company and the owners of websites is deemed as unnamed contracts, similar to tenancy contracts. The inclusion to the application of a third party code that allows for the inclusion of advertising on the website is in fact a violation of the integrity of the copyrighted work – the website. It is therefore the realm of personal (rather than property) rights of the copyright holders. Although these are inalienable rights, but according to the prior case-law, it is permitted to waive of the exercise of these rights by the creator to third parties, including entrepreneurs as it was decided by the Appellate Court in Warszawa in its judgment of 14 May 2007case file ACa 668/06 published in OSA 2008/12/39. The author or copyright owner can effectively commit to a specific person not to execute of personal rights, or even to allow for its exercise on his or her behalf, because then it comes to the exercise, and not to the renouncement of moral (personal) rights.

Tax law, case I SA/Ol 270/11

September 24th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Director of a Tax office decided that a person who led undeclared but taxable economic activity is subject to VAT. This decision was based on the basis of bank statements and information provided by the auction website Allegro. The amount of the tax obligation was set out in the amount of tax due, without reduction of input tax, because the tax payer did not submit any invoices that would serve as evidence of purchase of the goods that were later resold via Allegro.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Olsztyn in its judgment of 29 June 2011 case file I SA/Ol 270/11 held that a person who conducts business activities that were undeclared to tax, has the right to deduct the input VAT due, but such person must have the purchase invoices, because without them, the tax authorities are unable to verify the prices of the goods resold.

Tax law, case I SA/Łd 762/10

September 24th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Łódź in its judgment of 23 September 2010 case file I SA/Łd 762/10 held that a person whose account on an auction website was illegally hacked and used for sale of goods by someone else, is not obliged account to tax for such activity.

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 I SA/Wr 1080/10

November 27th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław in its judgment of 24 November 2010 case file I SA/Wr 1080/10 ruled that the client can deduct all the VAT in case of advance payment of fees for the entire period of software maintenance. The position of a tax authority stating that deduction is possible only in the settlement period in which service will be completely provided, is incorrect. It is another judgment favorable to taxpayers.

Tax law, case II FSK 1140/09

November 21st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In the request, which was submitted to the tax authorities on 8 July 2008, a Polish company (the Company) explained that it buys the rights to movies, which are intended for sale to TV stations. The contract that is signed with a foreign company from which Polish Company buys rights for movies concerns several titles, each of which is determined, by a unique unit price and a 3-year period in which the movie can be broadcast on a television. The start date for broadcasting begins with one month to twenty months from the date of signing the agreement and ends after 3 years. Records of the dates are assigned to the emission of the purchase agreement signed with the television station. The whole contract is payable in seven installments. Before the date of payment of each installment the Company issues a VAT invoice to the buyer. A foreign company from which these right are bough also issues to the Company the invoices, according to the payment schedule. Percentage payment schedule in the contract of purchase and sale are identical.

The Company inquired the tax authorities i) whether the rights should be treated as commodities, or as intangible and legal assets that are subject to depreciation over two years, ii) and at which time/moment the company creates the revenue that is subject to income tax of legal persons, iii) and in which time the company creates tax deductible.

According the Company those TV rights are bought for resale and should be deemed as goods/commodities and are not subject of depreciation under the terms of the Legal Persons’ Income Tax Act. While presenting the view on the creation of the income the Company stated that in this situation, transfer of property rights takes place not earlier than in the date of the exercise thereof by the purchaser. Revenue in the amount of license fee for each film is formed/created on the date of fulfillment of all contractual terms, i.e. delivery of materials and the beginning of the license period. The starting materials can be supplied before the date of license period, and after that date. The invoice installments issued by the Company are accounted in proportion to the prices on all movie titles that are subject to a given contract/agreement, and therefore the amount concerning movies which have not entered the license period, or starting materials have not been supplied, are deemed as received advances and are not taxable income. The deductible is the total price for the given movie, resulting from the purchase agreement signed with a foreign company and is created in the month of sale. The installment purchase invoices received by the Company are accounted in proportion to the prices on all movies being subject to a given contract/agreement, and therefore the amount concerning movies which have not entered a period of license, or starting materials have not been supplied, are not deductible costs for tax purposes.

The Minister of Finance in the individual interpretation issued of September 2008, held that the position of the Company on a legal assessment of the facts with respect to qualifications of tax on turnover of rights for movies was correct, but it also held that the position on the time/moment of creation of the revenue and recognition of income tax deductible cost was incorrect.

The Ministry of Finance ruled that, pursuant to the provisions of of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631, by license agreement, the licensor grants the licensee the authorization (license) to use his right of intellectual property, and the licensee agrees to pay the license fee. The right to use the audiovisual work is the property right. If subject of business activity of the Company (licensee) is marketing (distribution) of such rights, in this case, those rights are the goods.

While referring to the issue of the time/moment of creation of the revenue, the Tax Office found that expenditure on the acquisition of rights to the use of audiovisual works are direct costs associated with the disposal of such property/economic rights. Therefore, the applicant’s position that the amount concerning titles of movies which have not entered the period of a license or for which the starting materials has not been provided, are not deductible for tax purposes, was found invalid. The Company filed a request to case the infringement of law by changing the interpretation of the time/moment of creation of the revenue (second question). In response to that request, the Minister of Finance said that there are no grounds to change it.

The company filed a complaint against this interpretation. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 1 April 2009 case file III SA/Wa 3472/08 agreed with the Ministry of Finance and dismissed it. The cassation complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 2 November 2010 case file II FSK 1140/09.

Categories: copyright law | Polish law | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | tax on copyright.

Tax law, case III SA/Wa 1008/10

September 14th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company conducts its business based mainly on providing IT services and sales of software and hardware. The Company enquired the Tax Office whether the fees paid by it to the contractors based in the U.S. and the Netherlands in connection with making available of software, are subject to the flat tax at source of the distribution of software, i.e. in Poland.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 13 September 2010 case file III SA/Wa 1008/10 held that fees paid for the use of a computer program does not fall within the definition of royalties specified in the agreements on avoidance of double taxation with Holland and the USA. Therefore can not be taxed 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 I SA/Op 177/10

July 31st, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Opole in its judgment of 23 June 2010 case file I SA/Op 177/10, pointed to the lack of precision in the national legislation. The court stated that § 21(2) of Regulation of the Minister of Finance on 25 May 2005 on the tax refund to certain taxpayers, the advance tax refund, invoicing, the storage of invoices and the list of goods and services, to which the exemptions from taxes on goods and services are not applicable (in Polish: Rozporządzenie Ministra Finansów z dnia 25 maja 2005 r. w sprawie zwrotu podatku niektórym podatnikom, zaliczkowego zwrotu podatku, wystawiania faktur, sposobu ich przechowywania oraz listy towarów i usług, do których nie mają zastosowania zwolnienia od podatku od towarów i usług), does not provide that the limitation as to the form in which to store invoice is associated with the way they have been sent to the customer or have been made available in a different way. The VAC ruled that a literaly reading of the provisions included in Polish Regulation does not lead to the interpretation that if the invoice is made in a particular paper form, a copy must also be kept in the same form thereof.

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.

Tax law, case III SA/Wa 1823/09

May 17th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Director of Tax Control Office in Warsaw ruled that the amounts of cash referred to as a “license to exercise the media rights” that were received by Legia football club from the Polish Football Association (PZPN), should be subject to tax on goods and services. Legia argued that such an agreement is not a contract of sale of rights, but the license agreement. However, the Director has found that the PZPN was the sole owner of intangible (economic and non econimic) property rights to the Polish national championships. To be the sole owner of the rights to football matches, PZPN had to acquire these rights. Therefore, Legia had to transfer these rights in some way, and that included proper fee.

The Director referred to a series of court decisions and pointed out that the sports’ event, namely football games, do not constitute a copyrightable work under the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631. Legia as a football club does not take action on the creative nature. In the opinion of the Director, it is not precluded that on the legal market may exist licensing agreements relating to intangible property, other than works that are defined in the ARNR.

Only article 43(1) pt 13 of the Act on Goods and Services Tax – GSTA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004, Journal od Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 54, item 535, includes a reference to the ARNR.

Art. 43. 1. The following shall be exempted from the tax:
13) licensing or authorization to use a license, as well as assignment of the proprietary right within the meaning of the copyright law – in relation to computer programmes – free of charge, for educational facilities, referred to in paragraph 9.

That provision indicates the grant of the license or authorization to use copyright licenses and the transfer of property rights under copyright law (the ARNR). The absence of such references in other regulations means that the transfer of copyright may affect the rights of the author, or a sole owner of any intangible property, which does not have the characteristics of the copyrightable work. A similar situation will occur in the case of a license. Wherever there is no reference to copyright law (ARNR) it will also mean the license agreement for the use of intangible property other than the copyrightable work.

The Tax Office ruled that Legia transfered “media rights” to the PZPN, so the Association could fully manage of them, and so enter into an agreement concerning the disposition of such rights. The rate of the tax shall be 22% for such service. The tax shall become chargeable upon the receipt of all or part of payment, though not later than upon the expiry of the due date specified in the contract or invoice – for the performance in the territory of the country of services referred to in article 27(4) pt 1 of the GSTA.

4. The provision of paragraph 3 shall apply to the following services:
1) sale of rights or granting of licenses or sublicenses, transfers and assignments of copyrights, patents, trademarks, letting joint trademarks or joint guarantee marks for use, or other related rights.

Legia did not agree with the decision of the Director of Tax Control Office and filed a complaint against. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 26 March 2010 case file III SA/Wa 1823/09 dismissed it.

Tax law, case III SA/Wa 396/10

April 18th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 8 April 2010, case file III SA/Wa 396/10, ruled that there is no legislative impediment to the existence of a mixed system for the storage of invoices, which consists of sending an invoice in paper and storage of its electronic copies with the option to print at the request of a legitimate authority. Such an interpretation was corroborated by teleological considerations, environmental and economic. According to the VAC the different findings would lead to a breach of the principle of proportionality, as set out in article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union.

3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.

Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal C 83 of 30 March 2010. PDF files.

Tax law, case I SA/Kr 60/10

April 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company which provides advertising services that are based on placing advertising banners on Internet websites requested the Minister of Finance to issue an individual interpretation of tax law. The company rents websites from individuals and companies for remuneration. Banner ads are placed on rented websites by using a computer software owned by the company. The owners of rented websites were required at the start of cooperation only to do a single interference/change in the code in order to make space on their websites for ads placed by the Company. This moment was treated as a commitment by the parties to the lease agreement and such a website was subject to use and benefits/usufruct. The owners of websites were not required to render to the Company (or its customers) any other additional steps. The company receives payments from its advertisers/customers according to the agreement, i.e. periodicaly for example monthly or once after the ad campaign ended.

The company asked whether income from remuneration for the lease obtained by individuals (private persons) who were not doing any business activity in this field, must be considered to sources mentioned in article 10(1) pt 6 of the Polish Act on Personal Income Tax – PITA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych) of 26 July 1991, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 80, item 350, with later amendments.

Article 10.
1. The sources of revenues shall include:
6) letting, subletting, lease, sublease and similar contracts, including also lease, sublease of special sectors of agricultural production and agricultural undertakings or parts thereof for non-agricultural purposes or for running special sectors of agricultural production, with the exception of assets used for commercial activities;

The company wanted to know whether it should be also acting as withholding agent, who is obliged to collect withholding income tax. The company argued that according to article 10(1) pt 6 and 44(1) pt 2 of the PITA it is not its duty. The Director of the Tax Chamber, acting under the authority of the Minister of Finance, held the position of the Company to be invalid. The Director and the Minister of Finance held that every time there was a service contract concluded between the company and the owners of websites and not the lease agreement, because the owner should be regarded as a person cooperating with the Company based on the fact that they have been required to comply with personal activities, i.e. one-time intervention in the code of a website, so that ads can appear on their website. Their revenues shall be defined as in article 10(1) pt 1 of the PITA.

Article 10.
1. The sources of revenues shall include:
1) service relationship, employment relationship, including cooperative employment relationship, farming or other agricultural production cooperative, homework, retirement or disability pension;

The company appealed. The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Kraków in its judgment of 5 March 2010 case file I SA/Kr 60/10 held that a website is not either the tangible object/property or the right. It cannot therefore be subject to a lease within the meaning of the Polish Civil Code. However, according to the principle of contractual freedom, as the company correctly pointed out, it would be acceptable to conclude the so-called unnamed contract, which would be similar to the standard lease contract as provided by the regulations included in the Civil Code. The changes made in HTML code were just the technical operation.

See also “Tax law, case ILPB2/415-679/08-2/AJ“

Tax law and Internet, case I SA/Gd 17/10

April 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 3 March 2009, a Polish citizen (P.W.) requested the Minister of Finance to provide a written interpretation of tax law on individual case concerning personal income tax with regard to taxation of interest on loans granted over the Internet. P.W. wanted to use an online social lending website, which activity is based on associating individuals who want to take out a loan or to grant one. Loan agreements are concluded directly between the lender and the borrower by making a declaration of will in the electronic form.

P.W. had asked whether lending money to individuals through a social lending site will be an economic activity within the meaning of article 5a pt 6 of the Polish Act on Personal Income Tax – PITA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych) of 26 July 1991, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 80, item 350, with later amendments.

6) non-agricultural commercial activities – it shall mean profit oriented, organized and continuing activities, run in one’s own name and on own or another person’s account, the revenues from which are not included in other revenues from the sources listed in Article 10.1 subparagraphs 1, 2 and 4-9;

P.W. argued that his activities do not have all the above mentioned characteristics, and therefore such project will not constitute an economic activity within the meaning of the PITA. P.W. argued that the use of office equipment which is necessary for granting a loan by the use of the online social lending website does not imply the organized nature of such activity. He drew attention to the fact that having own devices is not necessary for carrying out such activities, since these activities may also be performed in Internet cafe or by the use of a third party equipment. The existence of the terms of service provided by the website does not prove the organized nature of lending activities either. P.W. also noted that his activities would not be a continuous process, because the loans will be sporadic, depending on the currently available resources.

On 21 May 2009, the Minister of Finance issued a personal interpretation, in which it ruled the taxpayer’s position as incorrect and held that activities related to lending money that are conducted through the Internet via a social lending website are deemed as non-agricultural commercial activities. According to the Minister of Finance these activities are taken to profit on its own behalf and on its own interest. Such loans are given in an organized manner, i.e., to be able to make loans the applicant must be subject to rules (TOS) set by the system, it must have computer equipment and Internet access. The fact that loans are to be given once a month, proves that these are not sporadic or one-time events and in consequence argues for recognition of the continuous nature of such actions.

P.W. did not agree with such interpretation and filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Gdańsk. The VAC in a judgment of 9 March 2010, case file I SA/Gd 17/10 rejected the complaint and upheld the interpretation of the Minister of Finance.

Tax law, case I FSK 1520/09

March 15th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 10 March 2010, case file I FSK 1520/09 held that the free of charge transfer of advertising materials for purposes related to operating a company is not deemed as supplying the goods and therefore not subject to value added tax as defined in article 7(2) and (3) of the Act on Goods and Services Tax – GSTA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług) of 11 March 2004, Journal od Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 54, item 535.

Article 7.
1. The supply of goods, referred to in Article 5.1.1, shall mean the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods as owner, including also:

1) transfer under an order made by a public authority or an entity acting in the name of such an authority, or transfer in pursuance of the law, of the ownership of the goods against payment of compensation;

2) release of goods under the tenancy, lease or a similar contract concluded for a definite period of time, or a credit sale contract, if the contract provides that in the normal course of events envisaged in that contract or upon payment of the last instalment, ownership shall be passed;

Categories: advertising law | case law | Polish Act on Goods and Services Tax | Polish Supreme Administrative Court | tax law.

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 II FSK 1003/08

March 3rd, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 20 November 2009, case file II FSK 1003/08, confirmed the rule that the Polish taxpayer is allowed only for the depreciation of the registered trade mark. This judgment was based on 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.

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:
(6) rights to: inventions, patents, trade marks, designs.

The SAC ruled that the priority to obtain the right of protection for a trade mark which is determined according to the date of filing of a trademark application with the Polish Patent Office (PPO) is something different than the possibility of introducing such a right in the records of intangible assets, which is allowed by the LEIT only after the PPO issued a positive decision on the grant of a right of protection for a trademark. Such a decision is always taken after having established that the statutory requirements for the grant of the right have been satisfied. Having only a priority does not guarantee such situation will take a favourable turn.

See also “Tax law, case I SA/Rz 249/09“.

Tax law, case II FSK 1182/08

February 4th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish company was purchasing rights to use of computer software from companies established in Ireland. The company has paid royalties to non-resident as defined in article 3 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. 3. 1. Taxpayers, if their seat or head office is in the territory of the Republic of Poland, shall be liable to pay tax on the entirety of their income regardless of where they have been generated.
2. Taxapyers who do not have a seat or head office in the territory of the Republic of Poland, shall be liable to pay tax only on income generated in the territory of the Republic of Poland.

According to the Polish company, the payment of remuneration to a foreign contracting party for the use of computer software is not royalty and it is not subject to income tax in Poland. Accordingly, the Polish company is not obliged to pay the tax under article 21(1) of the LEIT.

Art. 21. 1. Income tax on revenues derived in the territory of the Republic of Poland by taxpayers, referred to in Article 3.2:
1) from interest, from copyright or related rights, from rights to inventions, trademarks and ornamental designs, including also from selling those rights, from fees for disclosing the secrets of a technique or a production process, for the use or the right to use industrial, commercial or scientific equipment, including vehicles, and for information related to the experience acquired in industry, commerce or science (know-how);

2) from charges for services in the area of performances, entertainment or sports, performed by natural persons domiciled abroad, and organized through natural persons or legal persons conducting commercial activities related to artistic, entertainment or sport events in the territory of the Republic of Poland;
(…)

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply with account being taken of double taxation avoidance agreements, to which the Republic of Poland is a party.

The Polish company is also not obliged to collect lump income tax as defined in article 26(1) of the LEIT.

Legal persons and unincorporated organizational entities and natural persons operating as entrepreneurs, who pay out the amounts due under titles specified in Article 21.1 and in Article 22, shall be obliged, as withholding agents, to collect, subject to paragraph 2, lump income tax on those payments as at the date thereof. However, application of the tax rate arising from a relevant agreement on avoidance of double taxation or waiving tax collection in accordance with such agreement is possible providing the place of residence of the taxpayer has been documented for tax purposes by a certificate (certificate of residence) issued by a competent tax administration authority.

The company asked the Polish Minister of Finance to issue the interpretation on the question whether if it pays to foreign contracting parties the fee for the right to use the software, is it obliged to collect a lump income tax, in accordance with article 12 of the Agreement of 13 November 1995 between the Government of the Polish Republic and the Government of Ireland on avoidance of double taxation and prevent tax evasion on income tax, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2000, No. 53 item. 650.

In the order issues of 2 October 2007, the Minister of Finance did not agree with the aforementioned statement of the Polish company. By its decision of 21 October 2007, the Minister refused to annul the order of 2 October 2007. According to the Minister of Finance, international copyright agreements and treaties such as the Berne Convention and the TRIPS include the concept of computer programs being literary works which, in conqequence, allows to extend this rule to all norms/regulations of international law, including the provisions of article. 12, paragraph. 3a of the Agreement.

In the complaint brought before Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw, the company, requested the Court to annul the decision of the Minister of Finance because it was taken based on the misinterpretation of article 12 of the Agreement. In support of the complaint the Company claimed that the royalties associated with the purchase of software should be taxed in accordance with article 7, paragraph. 1 of the Agreement – only in the State where the entity obtaining such income as “business profits” is seated.

The VAC in a judgment of 4 April 2008, case file III SA/Wa 2153/07, agreed with the interpretation provided by the Polish company and annuled both the order and the decision. The Minister of Finance brought a cassation complaint to the Polish Supreme Administrative Court (SAC).

The SAC in a judgment of 13 January 2010, case file II FSK 1182/08 held that a computer program is not a literary work. Such interpretation based on article 1 of the Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 90, item 631, with subsequent amendments, is the unacceptable extensive interpretation of the tax law.

Chapter 1
Subject Matter of Copyright
Art. 1.-1. The subject matter of copyright is any expression of creative activity having individual character and manifested in any material form, regardless of the value, intended purpose and manner of expression thereof (work).
2. The subject matter of copyright includes the following in particular:
(1) works expressed in words, mathematical symbols or graphic signs (literary, advertising, scientific and cartographic works and computer programs),

For this reason, the SAC ruled that the payment for the use of computer software is not subject to taxation of royalties that shall be paid at the source of income. This interpretation was made in accordance with the Polish-Irish Agreement.

Tax law and Internet, case III SA/Wa 1013/09

January 7th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 24 November 2008, a Polish citizen (P.C.) requested the Minister of Finance to provide a written interpretation of tax law on individual case concerning personal income tax with regard to taxation of interest on loans granted over the Internet.

The system which is available at kokos.pl website allows for contacting people who need loans (the borrower – PB), with people who have the means to lend (the lender – PD). PB initiates a transaction by providing information on how much he or she wants to borrow, the period of repayment and interest. It is called an “auction” but there is no bidding at all. PD makes offer in the “auction” by making payments to kokos.pl website with an indication of the “auction”. The payment made by each user (PD) cannot exceed 500 PLN. If the “action” is finalized the system generates a series of electronic contracts (PB with each PD) and transfers all the payments made by the PDs to PB. Then PB pays a monthly installment loan to kokos.pl website, and the site distribute money between the accounts of all PD. The monthly payment is an adequate of a received share capital and it is increased by fixed interest. The sole income of PD is the interest rate determined by the PB while setting up the “auction”.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in a judgment of 29 October 2009, case file III SA/Wa 1013/09 ruled that P.C. receives income from interest on loans. This interpretation was based on articles 10(7) and 17(1) pt. 1 of the Polish Act on Personal Income Tax – PITA – (in Polish: ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych) of 26 July 1991, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 80, item 350, with later amendments.

Article 10. 1. The sources of revenues shall include:
7) financial investments and property rights, including selling property rights other than those referred to in subparagraph 8 letters (a)-(c),
(…)
Article 17. 1. Revenues from financial capital shall be:
1) interest on loans;

This means that the income should be classified as another source of income than non-agricultural economic activities. Consequently, even if it would be recognized that the P.C. grants loans using the site kokos.pl in an organized and continuing manner, this activity could not be deemed as non-agricultural commercial activities as defined in article 5a(6) of the PITA.

See also “Tax law and Internet, case I SA/Gd 17/10“.

Tax law, case I SA/Rz 249/09

July 24th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The assembly of shareholders of a Polish company (spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością – a legal concept similar to the limited company), following a resolution, decided to increase the company’s share capital by the creation of new shares. The new shares were covered by the shareholders in the form of an enterprise (the enterprise as as a subject of rights). One of the components of the enterprise was a trade mark valued at 750,000 PLN (around 179,016,307 Euros). The trade mark was entered in the company’s books in 2000 and the company started depreciating this asset in 2001 based on the provisions of Article 16b(1)(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.

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:
(6) rights to: inventions, patents, trade marks, designs;

This action was called into question by the Director of the Tax Office, who duly imposed tax (19,006 PLN for year 2002). The company appealed against this decision to the Director of the Tax Revenue Audit Office, but it was upheld. The findings made in the course of the investigation showed that, both in 2002 and in an earlier period of time, the sign in question had not been granted the right of protection, having been applied for at the Polish Patent Office on 8 November 2000. The company filed a complaint.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Rzeszów in its judgment of 21 May 2009 case file I SA/Rz 249/09 ruled that provisions of the LEIT allow only for the depreciation of the registered trade mark, since mere priority (the right of priority) to obtain a right of protection for a trade mark is not the right which is explicitly mentioned in article 16(1) of the LEIT. The Court emphasized the fact that the acquisition of rights to a trade mark occurs within the system of constitutive registration, the law-creating nature of which is attributed to “an act of registration” made by the Polish Patent Office in the form of the administrative decision. The only exception to this rule is the acquisition of rights to well-known trade marks, the protection of which does not depend on the registration – but it was not the issue of this case.

Tax law, case I SA/Op 239/08

May 28th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Opole in its judgment of 4 March 2009, case file I SA/Op 239/08 ruled that when performing commercial transactions over the Internet in an organized and continuous manner, the taxpayer shall register such business and pay the taxes by virtue of performing such activity. Conducting a business with the use of internet networks is associated with the same tax obligations as operating business in the traditional manner, which includes, in particular the pursuit of tax revenue and expenditure accounts in such a way as to determine the income (loss), the tax base and amount of tax due for the fiscal/tax year.

Tax law, case ILPB2/415-679/08-2/AJ

May 21st, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Polish citizen bought domain names under which she has established website where the company from United States placed some ads. The owner of the mentioned website receives payments from the US company via PayPal or bank account several times a year. She does not have any invoices or bills. She is not an entrepreneur nor she is providing any online advertising business. The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita published an article titled “Jaki PIT od wynajęcia internetowej witryny pod reklamy“, which loosely translates as “What tax for renting website for online advertising” with a question, how and where should such person pay taxes.

According to interpretations issued by the Tax Chamber in Poznań of 13 January 2009 (ILPB2/415-679/08-2/AJ) and the interpretation by the Tax Chamber in Bydgoszcz of 17 March 2008 (ITPB1/415-797/07/PS), the income which is derived from activities performed “in person” for the US company, should be taxed only in the Republic of Poland.

Categories: domain names | e-adverstising | e-law issues | Polish law | tax law.

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.