Poland: Reverse-charge on domestic construction services

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Poland: Reverse-charge on domestic construction services

fornalik.jpg

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 (janina.fornalik@mddp.pl)

MDDP, Warsaw

Tel: +48 22 3226888

Website: www.mddp.pl

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As the firm embarks on a major shakeup of its EMEA partnerships, some staff will be watching nervously
The buyout of Hucke and Associates continues Ryan’s streak of firm acquisitions; in other news, a UK appeal against VAT on private school fees was dismissed
Tax teams are responding to usual client demand in the region, albeit with increased working from home flexibility, local sources indicate
A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Digital tax reform is dissolving the old ‘temporal buffer’, forcing systems, institutions, and professionals to adapt as real-time reporting reshapes governance, capability, and compliance
Our first instalment features analysis of Deloitte’s landmark EMEA merger, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court tariff showdown and Venezuela’s tax evolution
While some believe it could have a positive effect on the wider advisory landscape, others argue that HMRC’s ‘red tape’ exercise won’t deter bad actors
The political optics of the US’s carve-out deal are poor, but as the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan writes, it preserves pillar two’s guiding ethos
The big four firm reportedly sent ‘threatening’ correspondence to Unity Advisory over its hiring of ex-PwC partners; plus tax recruitment news from the week
Gift this article