Poland has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[1]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2023 (year in review), and no recommendations are made.
Poland can legally issue five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.
In practice, Poland issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:
|
Type of ruling |
Number of rulings |
|---|---|
|
Past rulings |
84 |
|
Future rulings in the period 1 April 2016 – 31 December 2016 |
6 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2017 |
20 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2018 |
16 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2019 |
100 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2020 |
108 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2021 |
170 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2022 |
162 |
|
Future rulings in the year in review |
224 |
Peer input was received from three jurisdictions in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from Poland. The input was generally positive, noting that overall information was complete, in a correct format and received in a timely manner. However, peer input indicated that information was information included in the summary section of Annex C of the Action 5 report (OECD, 2015[3]) was not sufficient.
930. Poland can legally issue the following five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles; (iii) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; (iv) permanent establishment rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.
931. For Poland, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 April 2016; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2010 but before 1 January 2014, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2014.
932. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Poland’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that Poland’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Poland’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
933. Poland has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.
934. Poland has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Poland notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.
935. Poland has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including: (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[2]) (“the Convention”), (ii) the Directive 2011/16/EU with all other European Union Member States and (iii) bilateral agreements in force with 92 jurisdictions.2
936. For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:
|
Future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework |
Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted |
Delayed exchanges |
||
|
Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority |
Reasons for the delays |
Any other comments |
||
|
297 |
1 |
Failed for regular mail exchange, therefore e-mail exchange done, but with delay |
N/A |
|
|
Follow-up requests received for exchange of the ruling |
Number |
Average time to provide response |
Number of requests not answered |
|
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
937. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Poland’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. With respect to past rulings, no further action was required. Poland’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
938. Poland has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges. Poland has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.
939. The statistics for the year in review are as follows:
|
Category of ruling |
Number of exchanges |
Jurisdictions exchanged with |
|---|---|---|
|
Ruling related to a preferential regime |
11 |
Australia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Switzerland, Türkiye, United Kingdom, United States |
|
Cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles |
14 |
Belize, China (People’s Republic of), South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States |
|
Cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial / commercial accounts |
61 |
Australia, Canada, China (People’s Republic of), Gibraltar, Israel, Japan, Korea, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States |
|
Permanent establishment rulings |
3 |
De minimis rule applies |
|
Related party conduit rulings |
209 |
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic), Gibraltar, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States |
|
IP regimes: total exchanges on taxpayers benefitting from the third category of IP assets, new entrants benefitting from grandfathered IP regimes; and taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption |
0 |
N/A |
|
Total |
298 |
940. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Poland’s information gathering and exchange of information processes for matters related to intellectual property regimes3 were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Poland’s implementation in this regard remains unchanged and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
|
Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved |
Recommendation for improvement |
|
No recommendations are made. |
[1] OECD (2021), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices - Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.
[3] OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.
[2] OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.
← 1. IP Box.
← 2. Participating jurisdictions to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Poland also has bilateral agreements with Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Canada, Cayman, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jersey, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Chinese Taipei, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.
← 3. IP box.