International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Poland: Reverse-charge on domestic construction services


Janina Fornalik

The amendments to the Polish VAT Act, binding since January 1 2017, introduced new regulations regarding the reverse charge mechanism applicable to domestic supplies between two VAT payers consisting of construction works. However, additional specific conditions should be met, which in practice create a number of interpretation problems.

The legislator introduced two main conditions for the application of the reverse charge mechanism, which must be fulfilled jointly:

1) Subjective condition – the reverse charge mechanism should be applied only on the construction works listed in Annex 14 to the VAT Act; and

2) Objective condition – regarding the status of the parties to the transaction, i.e.:

  • the service provider is not exempt from VAT;

  • the service recipient should be registered as an active VAT payer; and

  • the service provider should act as a subcontractor.

In regards to the subjective condition, it is not always clear if the scope of activities covered by the contract should be classified as the construction works mentioned in Annex 14 to the VAT Act. VAT treatment of the composite supplies could be one of the controversial issues (separate supplies vs. one single supply and determining the main supply).

In regards to the objective condition, the meaning of the term "subcontractor" is problematic in view of various practical situations, since it is not defined in the VAT Act, nor can it be found in any other tax regulations. The Ministry of Finance stated that the literary interpretation of this word should be understood from the dictionary definition, i.e. "subcontractor" should be considered to a person or a firm that performs works commissioned by the main contractor. It should be, therefore, assumed that if the service provider acts as a main contractor directly for the benefit of the investor (for whom the construction permit was issued), it should not be considered as a subcontractor and the reverse charge mechanism will be not applicable. The problem arises e.g. where the construction works are rendered by the members of the consortium or where they are recharged to another entity.

Application of the appropriate VAT rules to the construction services performed since January 1 2017 is very important. The services provider who performs construction works acting as a subcontractor is obliged to issue VAT invoices without VAT. This is the service recipient who should account for VAT under the reverse-charge mechanism. Then, the main contractor should issue an invoice to the investor on the general rules charging output VAT. This means that the subcontractor will be in the permanent VAT refund position which significantly influences the cash flow.

Incorrect settlement of the VAT on the construction works might have substantial VAT consequences. If the subcontractor issues the invoice to the main contractor with VAT, the main contractor will not be entitled to deduct input VAT from such an invoice. On the other hand, the main contractor will be obliged to settle output VAT on the construction services acquired under reverse charge rules. Thus, the main contractor will have to pay VAT twice. In case the main contractor fails to account for output VAT, the penalties for the breach of this obligation will be imposed, including 30% sanction.

Janina Fornalik (

MDDP, Warsaw

Tel: +48 22 3226888


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
An intense period of lobbying and persuasion is under way as the UN secretary-general’s report on the future of international tax cooperation begins to take shape. Ralph Cunningham reports.
Fresh details of the European Commission’s state aid case against Amazon emerge, while a pension fund is suing Amgen over its tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service.