The government’s proposed amendments to the Tax Ordinance Act represent one of the most significant developments in the field of tax rulings in recent years. The proposal forms part of the Deregulation 2 package and its principal objective is to centralise the authority to issue individual tax rulings concerning local taxes and charges in the hands of the Director of the National Tax Information (KIS).

The purpose of the reform is to ensure a consistent approach to the interpretation of provisions governing local taxes and charges by subjecting them to rules analogous to those applicable to other individual tax rulings. As a result, the new framework is intended to improve consistency in the application of tax law and reduce the occurrence of conflicting interpretations.

The current system

At present, individual tax rulings relating to local taxes and charges, particularly real estate tax, are issued by the competent local authority, namely the commune head (wójt), mayor, city president, district governor (starosta), or regional marshal.

This means that the authority to issue such rulings is dispersed among numerous bodies, which does not facilitate the uniform application of tax provisions to identical factual and legal circumstances and makes it more difficult to identify inconsistencies in interpretation between authorities. This issue is particularly burdensome for businesses holding assets in multiple municipalities, such as utility and transmission companies, which must initiate separate proceedings in each municipality. A ruling obtained in one municipality does not provide protection in relation to an investment located in a neighbouring municipality.

It is also worth noting that, as of 24 September 2026, new regulations introduced a central publication system for individual tax rulings concerning local taxes and charges. This development should make access to rulings considerably easier and more transparent. Previously, such rulings were published in the Public Information Bulletins of individual local government units, which in practice made them difficult to locate and analyse. Local tax authorities are now required to submit issued rulings to the Director of KIS, who is responsible for publishing them in the EUREKA system. Consequently, these rulings will be collected in a single publicly accessible database, facilitating both the search for rulings and the monitoring of administrative practice.

Centralisation: Transfer of authority to the Director of KIS

The key change is the transfer of authority to issue individual tax rulings concerning local taxes and charges to the Director of KIS.

Formally, this will be achieved by repealing the specific provisions governing local government tax rulings. As a result, the rules governing rulings in local taxes will become aligned with those applicable to other taxes, with the Director of KIS acting as the issuing authority and the Head of the National Revenue Administration (KAS) acting as the authority empowered to amend rulings.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the Director of KIS is a highly specialised authority issuing approximately 25,000 tax rulings annually, compared with around 200 local government rulings. Consequently, the additional responsibility is expected to constitute only a marginal administrative burden.

For taxpayers holding assets in multiple municipalities, centralisation will make it possible to submit a single application covering the entire factual situation, significantly simplifying the procedure. The proposal expressly states that it does not alter the tax powers of local authorities. Their competences concerning tax rates, exemptions, collection, audits, and tax assessment will remain unchanged.

The municipality’s voice in the process: Consultation on draft rulings

To ensure that local authorities are not entirely excluded from the process, the proposal introduces a consultation mechanism:

• The Director of KIS must promptly notify the competent local authority of the submission of a ruling application and provide information concerning the parts relevant to the particular local tax.
• The Director of KIS must then provide the authority with a draft ruling and request its position on the matter.
• The local authority will have 14 days to present its position together with supporting reasons. Failure to respond within that period will be deemed tacit approval of the draft ruling.
• If the Director of KIS does not follow the authority’s position, the ruling must include reasons explaining why that position was not accepted.
• The period during which the local authority’s opinion is awaited will not count towards the statutory deadline for issuing the ruling.

The municipality’s right to challenge a ruling

This is the most controversial aspect of the proposal.

The new Article 14ga provides that a local authority will have the right to file a complaint with an administrative court against a ruling that does not reflect its position, as well as against an amendment to an individual ruling made by the Head of KAS.

The right to challenge a ruling has been limited to these two situations. According to the explanatory memorandum, this restriction is intended to protect taxpayer-favourable decisions and preserve legal certainty.

The legislator argues that, once authority is transferred to the Director of KIS, a municipality will no longer combine the roles of both the authority conducting the proceedings and the party challenging the decision. In light of the Constitutional Tribunal’s position cited in the explanatory memorandum (judgment of 29 October 2009, case no. K 32/08), this removes any constitutional obstacle to granting municipalities such a right.

Suspension of taxpayer protection during litigation

A challenge brought by a local authority will result in the suspension of the protection arising from the ruling.

In particular:

• The taxpayer protection provisions (Articles 14k–14m of the Tax Ordinance Act) will not apply to a ruling challenged by a local authority unless the administrative court finally dismisses or rejects the complaint or discontinues the proceedings.
• The Director of KIS will be required to inform the applicant without delay that a complaint has been filed by the municipality.
• If the court annuls the ruling, the taxpayer will not benefit from the protection arising from that annulled ruling. Instead, protection will arise only from the new ruling issued following the judgment. If the complaint is dismissed, rejected, or the proceedings are discontinued, protection will apply retroactively from the date on which the challenged ruling was delivered.

In addition, in the case of a so-called silent ruling, where no ruling is issued within the statutory deadline, the municipality will have the right to request that the Head of KAS amend it. The Head of KAS must amend the ruling if it is found to be incorrect, taking into account, in particular, the case law of the courts, the Constitutional Tribunal, or the Court of Justice of the European Union. Alternatively, the municipality must be informed that there are no grounds for amendment.

Expiry of existing local government rulings and transitional provisions

Under the proposed regulations, proceedings initiated before 1 July 2027 that have not been finally concluded by that date will continue to be conducted under the existing rules.

At the same time, individual tax rulings issued by local government authorities before that date will retain their protective effect after the new regulations enter into force. They will cease to be effective only once the Director of KIS issues a new ruling for the same taxpayer, covering the same factual circumstances or future event and based on the same legal framework.

In practice, this means that taxpayers relying on existing rulings will need to verify whether the level of protection provided by any new ruling corresponds to that afforded by the ruling previously obtained.

Summary and commentary

The overall direction of the reform deserves a positive assessment. The current fragmentation of interpretative authority genuinely hampers the uniform application of tax law and particularly affects taxpayers operating across multiple local government jurisdictions, such as infrastructure investors.

Concentrating this function within a single specialised authority and allowing taxpayers to submit a single application covering an entire factual situation should indeed improve both predictability and the quality of tax interpretation.

The difficulty lies in the mechanism designed to protect municipal interests. Granting local authorities the right to challenge rulings with which they disagree would be understandable were it not accompanied by the suspension of taxpayer protection throughout the court proceedings. If the purpose of centralisation is to enhance consistency and legal certainty, the final word should rest with the central authority. The dissatisfaction of a local authority should not result in the loss of protection for a taxpayer who has relied on a ruling issued by a specialised state authority.

It is also worth considering the broader systemic risk. If centralisation is intended to eliminate the current “patchwork” of divergent decisions between municipalities, the litigation mechanism may recreate a similar risk at the judicial level. The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges this tension by limiting challenges to only two situations in order to protect taxpayer-favourable outcomes and legal certainty. This suggests that the authors of the proposal were aware of the issue but ultimately chose a solution that temporarily deprives taxpayers of protection rather than strengthening the consultative role of municipalities before a ruling is issued.

At this stage, it is difficult to predict how the new rules will operate in practice. In particular, it remains unclear how the exchange of views between local authorities and the Director of KIS will function and what procedural consequences may arise from local authorities challenging issued rulings.