Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: tax law

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 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 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

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 Commercial Companies Code, 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“.

Trade marks and taxes, 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)(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 “Trade mark law, 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“.

Trade mark law, I SA/Rz 249/09

July 24th, 2009, Tomasz Rychlicki

Financial issues relating to trade marks are not a frequent subject matter that is discussed on my website, therefore I decided to write a short post regarding that topic. 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 to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Rzeszów. The VAC, in a 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.

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).

Tax law, case USPP-IV-440/30/06/P-I/23717

April 21st, 2006, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Tax Office in Chorzów in its interpretation of 27 marca 2006 case file USPP-IV-440/30/06/P-I/23717 held that publishing of a computer program free of charge via the Internet with the possibility of its use by all, is not based on legal title, indicating the obligation for service and the salary and the amount of donations is not dependent on the service, so actons of the applicant cannot be deemed as performed for remuneration. Furthermore, there was no reason to believe that these actions were services provided free-of-charge and therefore this activity is not subject to tax on goods and services.

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