Abuse of verification activities by tax authorities in Poland

Legal nature of verification activities and tax audits

Verification activities are designed to examine basic tax obligations – in particular, the timeliness of filing returns, the formal correctness of documents, and the timely payment of tax liabilities. They are initiated ex officio, without the requirement to notify the taxpayer, and are often conducted via electronic communication or even by telephone. The Tax Ordinance does not impose any obligation to prepare a final protocol, nor does it establish time limits or quantitative restrictions for such activities. This restricts the possibility of reviewing the authority’s actions and deprives the taxpayer of the right to raise formal objections.

By contrast, a tax audit, regulated in Chapter VI of the Tax Ordinance, requires the taxpayer to be served with formal authorisation specifying the subject and scope of the audit, as well as the officers appointed to carry it out. During an audit, the authority may use the full catalogue of evidentiary measures provided in Chapter IV of the Tax Ordinance, including inspections, expert opinions, and witness testimony. The audit concludes with a protocol, to which the taxpayer may submit objections. Moreover, pursuant to Article 55 of the Entrepreneurs’ Law (Prawo przedsiębiorców), its duration is subject to statutory limits.

A comparison of both institutions leads to the conclusion that verification activities fulfil a technical and preliminary function, while a tax audit constitutes a comprehensive evidentiary procedure.

Scope and practice of abuse

The vague wording of Article 272 of the Tax Ordinance (“verification of expenses and revenues”; “formal correctness of documents”) grants tax authorities wide interpretative discretion. As a result, verification activities are increasingly taking on the scope of tax audits – involving repeated, extensive requests for documentation and quasi-evidentiary actions.

An illustrative case involved a company exporting cars, which for nearly an entire year was subjected to repeated email requests for detailed information about every stage of its transactions – from the order, through transport, to the receipt of the vehicle outside the EU. The scale of these requests clearly exceeded the statutory framework of verification activities, effectively transforming them into a de facto audit conducted without the formal requirements and procedural safeguards of a tax audit.

This phenomenon is systemic. According to data from the Ministry of Finance, the number of tax audits fell from approximately 20,000 in 2019 to fewer than 10,000 in 2024, while the number of verification activities increased by more than 170,000 during the same period. The Ministry emphasises the efficiency and lower administrative costs of such activities, yet in practice it is estimated that about 10% of them are equivalent in scope to tax audits.

Legal and systemic implications

The instrumental use of verification activities results in significant violations of fundamental principles of tax procedure. When authorities undertake actions proper to tax audits without the required authorisation, they infringe the principle of legality (Article 120 of the Tax Ordinance). Conducting activities of unlimited duration undermines the principle of trust in public authorities (Article 121 § 1 O.p.) as well as the principle of finality of administrative decisions (Article 128 O.p.). In practice, taxpayers are deprived of the right to active participation in proceedings, and of the protections provided by the Entrepreneurs’ Law, in particular the statutory limits on audit duration and the prohibition of simultaneous inspections.

From a systemic perspective, this shift places the burden of verification on a less formalised instrument that lacks procedural balance, leading to the erosion of taxpayer rights.

Safeguarding taxpayers’ interests

In light of the above abuses, the professional protection of taxpayers’ rights takes on particular importance. Within the framework of tax advisory services, law firms consistently ensure compliance with the statutory limits of verification activities. They safeguard taxpayers from being deprived of procedural guarantees arising both from the Tax Ordinance and from the Entrepreneurs’ Law. The overarching objective is to ensure that the instruments provided by tax law serve their intended purpose, and are not used as a means of circumventing statutory restrictions to the detriment of the taxpayer.

---

Anita Tulak is a graduate of the Faculty of Law and Administration and a tax advisor at the National Chamber of Tax Advisors. She has passed through all levels of career in accounting and tax law, from assistant to partner of a law firm and worked for recognised private consulting firms and the “Big Four” company PwC.