All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Poland: Evaluating the tax consolidation for groups regime

Sponsored by

A broad solution to base erosion is being explored by policy makers

Agnieszka Wnuk of MDDP explains the implications of recent developments concerning the consolidation of tax groups regime in Poland.

Capital groups are allowed to consolidate their corporate tax (CIT) results provided that they fulfil a number of conditions.

Firstly, consolidation for CIT purposes is possible in clear capital structures. A group of at least two companies may be treated as one CIT payer provided that it consists of a Polish parent company holding at least 75% of shares in at least one another Polish company. Thus, in practice, there may be a Polish holding company with several direct subsidiaries (second and further tier subsidiaries results may not be consolidated).

Figure 1 shows a typical consolidated tax group (CTG) structure, including tax transparent partnerships belonging to Polish companies.

Figure 1. A typical CTG structure in Poland


There is also a minimal capitalisation requirement, and the condition that the companies cannot have tax arrears or benefit from tax exemptions. The CTG must be set for at least three years based on the agreement concluded by the companies and registered by the head of the tax office.

It should be noted that under the Polish CTG regime, the tax results of Polish subsidiaries of a foreign holding company – including an EU parent company – cannot be consolidated. This may be controversial in regard to subsidiaries of holding companies from the EU countries, when taking into account Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) verdicts.

After registration, the CTG must achieve a minimum profitability level of 2% (taxable income to tax revenues). This condition is sometimes perceived as an obstacle by the groups, in particular taking into account that the CTG is tied up for at least three years. In response to the expectations of the business, in 2020, the requirement of minimum profitability was suspended for the groups that faced negative consequences from the COVID-19 pandemic. The suspension is expected to be prolonged to 2021 based on the most recent draft amendments to CIT law.

Moreover, in contrary to the case of breaking other CTG regime requirements – such as the abuse of transfer pricing rules with regard to the transaction concluded with the entity from outside the CTG, or decreasing the number of companies constituting the CTG – failing to achieve the required level of income does not result in severe tax consequences such as the obligation of a retroactive CIT settlement at the level of particular companies. If the CTG fails to report required profitability, the CTG is dissolved at the end of the year in which the condition was broken.

The CTG regime provides for several other advantages apart from the consolidation of the tax regime of member companies.

For instance, the limitation of tax deductibility of debt financing costs (interest, etc.) is not applicable to loans or similar agreements concluded between the members of the CTG.

Likewise, the limitation of tax deductibility of costs of intangible services acquired from related parties is not applicable to the costs of such services bought from other CTG members.

Furthermore, the local transfer pricing documentation file is not required for the transactions concluded between CTG companies.

Taking into account the most recent changes in CIT law, limited partnerships that are tax transparent may become tax opaque (CIT payers) in 2021. A CTG may become an attractive alternative for these groups whose businesses require the conducting of activities through several entities (e.g. the construction industry where particular projects are often held by separate partnerships), allowing for tax consolidation.

Moreover, due to other CIT law changes implemented in recent years, the effective tax rates of numerous groups are constantly increasing. This has happened despite the nominal CIT rate being the same or even decreased in some cases. The level of tax safety has also been brought down by the unclear, low quality legislation and the increasingly aggressive approach of tax authorities during tax audits. Applying an instrument for utilising tax losses generated by another group company on current basis, even though it requires the fulfilment of sometimes restrictive conditions, may seem to be a worthwhile solution.


Agnieszka Wnuk


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Italian government published plans to levy capital gains tax on cryptocurrency transactions, while Brazil and the UK signed a new tax treaty.
Multinational companies fear the scrutiny of aggressive tax audits may be overstepping the mark on transfer pricing methodology.
Standardisation and outsourcing are two possible solutions amid increasing regulations and scrutiny on transfer pricing, say sources.
Inaugural awards announces winners
The UN’s decision to seek a leadership role in global tax policy could be a crucial turning point but won’t be the end of the OECD, say tax experts.
The UN may be set to assume a global role in tax policy that would rival the OECD, while automakers lobby the US to change its tax rules on Chinese materials.
Companies including Valentino and EveryMatrix say the early adoption of EU public CbCR rules could boost transparency of local and foreign MNEs, despite the short notice.
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2023 ITR Tax Awards in Asia-Pacific, Europe Middle East & Africa, and the Americas.
Tax authorities and customs are failing multinationals by creating uncertainty with contradictory assessment and guidance, say in-house tax directors.
The CJEU said the General Court erred in law when it ruled that both companies benefitted from Italian state aid.