Complaint to the administrative court against a tax decision (judicial review in Poland)

A complaint to the administrative court against a tax decision (skarga do sądu na decyzję podatkową) is the remedy by which a taxpayer submits an administratively final decision to review by an independent administrative court for conformity with the law (Article 3(2)(1) of the Act of 30 August 2002, Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, the LPAC; Article 1(2) of the Act of 25 July 2002, Law on the System of Administrative Courts). It is filed with the provincial administrative court (WSA) within 30 days of service of the appellate decision, through the authority that issued it (Articles 53(1) and 54(1) LPAC). The court does not replace the authority in assessing the tax; it examines whether the decision was issued in accordance with substantive law and procedural rules, and its review extends to the lawfulness of the findings of fact. The court sets the decision aside where it finds a breach of substantive law that affected the outcome, a breach giving grounds for reopening the proceedings, or another procedural breach capable of materially affecting the outcome (Article 145(1)(1) LPAC); its legal assessment and directions bind the authority on re-examination (Article 153 LPAC).

Key points

• The complaint requires exhaustion of remedies in the tax proceedings (Article 52(1) LPAC): the decision of the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber or another appellate authority may be challenged, not the first-instance decision; see the entry on the appeal against a tax decision.
• The deadline is 30 days from service of the decision (Article 53(1)). The complaint is filed through the authority, which within 30 days of receiving it forwards it to the court with the file and a reply (Article 54(2)) or, within the same period, grants it in full by way of self-review, setting the decision aside and issuing a new one (Article 54(3)). A complaint filed directly with the court before the deadline is nevertheless timely, and the court forwards it promptly to the authority (Article 53(4)).
• The proportional court fee depends on the amount in dispute: 4 percent up to and including PLN 10,000 (not less than PLN 100), 3 percent above PLN 10,000 up to and including PLN 50,000 (not less than PLN 400), 2 percent above PLN 50,000 up to and including PLN 100,000 (not less than PLN 1,500) and 1 percent above PLN 100,000 (not less than PLN 2,000 and not more than PLN 100,000). In tax obligation cases not covered by the proportional fee the fixed fee is PLN 500. A party without means may apply for legal aid (Articles 243 and 246).
• Filing does not stay enforcement (Article 61(1) LPAC). The first-instance tax authority withholds enforcement on application after voluntary security in the forms of Article 33d(2) of the Tax Ordinance is accepted, or ex officio after the final registration of a compulsory mortgage or treasury pledge (Article 239f of the Tax Ordinance Act of 29 August 1997, the Tax Ordinance), and the court may stay enforcement where there is a risk of significant damage or effects difficult to reverse (Article 61(3) LPAC). Filing suspends the limitation period of the liability (Article 70(6)(2) Tax Ordinance).
• The court decides within the limits of the case without being bound by the pleas and requests of the complaint (Article 134(1)) and may not rule to the complainant’s detriment unless it finds a breach of law resulting in the nullity of the challenged decision (Article 134(2)). It sets the decision aside in the cases of Article 145(1)(1), declares nullity in the cases of Article 247 Tax Ordinance (Article 145(1)(2)) and, where special provisions exclude setting aside or a declaration of nullity, declares that the decision was issued in breach of the law (Article 145(1)(3)). In the cases of Article 145(1)(1)(a) or (2) it may order the authority to issue a decision within a set time, indicating how the case is to be resolved, unless the resolution is left to the authority’s discretion (Article 145a(1)).
• The judgment may be challenged by a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) within 30 days of service of the judgment with reasons, drawn up as a rule by an advocate or legal adviser, or in tax obligation cases also by a tax adviser (Articles 173, 175 and 177). Written reasons for a judgment dismissing the complaint must be requested within 7 days of pronouncement of the judgment or of service of its operative part (Article 141(2)).

Subject, deadline and form

The complaint is available to anyone with a legal interest, that is the addressee of the decision and other parties to the tax proceedings, as well as the public prosecutor, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Commissioner for Children’s Rights (Article 50(1)) and, under separate provisions, the Ombudsman for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Its subject is an administratively final decision, one against which no appeal lies (Article 128 Tax Ordinance), and decisions issued in extraordinary procedures. The 30 days run from service on the complainant or, where a representative was appointed, from service on the representative. A paper complaint is filed through the authority whose decision is challenged (Article 54(1)); handing it in at a Polish post office of the designated operator, at a post office in another EU member state or at a Polish consulate is equivalent to filing it with the court (Article 83(3)). A complaint filed directly with the court before the deadline is not lost: the deadline is met and the court forwards it promptly to the authority (Article 53(4)). The exhaustion requirement and the route to court are discussed in our article on appeals to administrative courts.

A complaint in electronic form is filed to the authority’s electronic inbox (Article 54(1a)), and the date of filing is the date of entry into the system shown in the official acknowledgement of receipt (Article 83(5)); the document must bear a qualified, trusted or personal signature. Dispatch to the authority’s electronic delivery address through the e-Doręczenia system gave rise to divergent rulings in 2025: some provincial courts rejected complaints filed that way, treating ePUAP as the only electronic route, but the Supreme Administrative Court held a complaint filed with the authority through e-Doręczenia to be effective (orders of 28 October 2025, I OSK 1516/25 and I OSK 1517/25, of 20 November 2025, II OSK 2242/25, and of 26 March 2026, III FSK 1603/25). The safe route remains the authority’s inbox on ePUAP with the acknowledgement of receipt kept; filing a complaint to the court’s own electronic delivery address will become possible only on 1 October 2029, the date set for the courts in the Act of 18 November 2020 on Electronic Delivery. An ordinary e-mail is not an effective filing.

The complaint must contain the elements of a pleading (Article 46) and identify the challenged decision, the authority that issued it and the breach of law or legal interest alleged (Article 57(1)). There is no requirement of professional representation before the first-instance court, and the court is not bound by the pleas; even so, the pleas and requests should be drafted with care, because they define the field of the dispute and a later cassation complaint rests on the grounds of Article 174 directed at the judgment, so breaches already described at this stage are easier to raise before the NSA. Proof of payment of the fee, the power of attorney and copies for the parties are attached.

Costs, legal aid and suspension of enforcement

The fee on a complaint against a decision determining a liability is proportional and calculated on the amount in dispute under the scale in the Council of Ministers regulation of 16 December 2003 on the amount and rules of collection of fees in proceedings before administrative courts.

The fixed fee depends on the actual subject of the complaint: PLN 100 for rulings issued in administrative, enforcement and security proceedings (section 2(1)(1)), PLN 200 for decisions and rulings issued in the procedures of reopening, declaration of nullity, revocation or amendment, or expiry of an act (section 2(5)), and PLN 500 in other tax obligation cases not covered by the proportional fee (section 2(3)(12)). The fee on a cassation complaint is half the fee on the complaint, not less than PLN 100 (section 3), and the fee on an interlocutory appeal is PLN 100. A draft of a new regulation (no. RD175), published by the Government Legislation Centre in July 2025, provides among other things for a doubling of the minimum fixed fees and a cassation fee equal to twice the fee on the complaint; as at the date of this entry the 2003 regulation applies. An individual obtains full legal aid on showing that he cannot bear any costs of the proceedings, and partial legal aid on showing that he cannot bear the full costs without detriment to the necessary maintenance of himself and his family; a legal person obtains it where it has no means, or no sufficient means, to bear the costs (Article 246(1) and (2) LPAC). If the complaint succeeds, the authority reimburses the complainant’s necessary costs, including the fee and counsel’s remuneration at the regulated rates, which need not match the contractual fee (Articles 200 and 205); costs are also reimbursed where the proceedings are discontinued after self-review (Article 201). Dismissal of the complaint by the WSA creates no duty to reimburse the authority; the cost risk arises in cassation proceedings, where the party whose cassation complaint is dismissed reimburses the opponent, and on a successful cassation complaint the losing party bears the costs (Articles 203 and 204).

An administratively final decision is enforceable (Article 239e Tax Ordinance) and the complaint does not of itself stay enforcement (Article 61(1) LPAC). The taxpayer has two instruments of suspension and one financial alternative. The first instrument is an application to the first-instance tax authority to withhold enforcement after voluntary security in one of the forms listed in Article 33d(2) Tax Ordinance is accepted: a bank or insurance guarantee, a bank surety, a bill of exchange guaranteed by a bank, a certified cheque, a registered pledge on Treasury or National Bank securities, a deposit on the authority’s deposit account or an irrevocable authorisation over a term deposit; enforcement is withheld up to the amount of the security and for its duration (Article 239f(1)(1)), the application must be decided within 14 days, and exceeding that period withholds enforcement by operation of law until the ruling is served (Article 239f(2)). An ordinary mortgage on the taxpayer’s real estate is not currently a form of voluntary security; only after the final registration of a compulsory mortgage or treasury pledge enjoying priority of satisfaction does the authority withhold enforcement ex officio (Article 239f(1)(2)). The second instrument is an application to the court to stay enforcement, granted where the complainant shows a risk of significant damage or effects difficult to reverse, such as loss of liquidity (Article 61(3) LPAC); the court does not examine the merits at this stage. A stay granted by the court lapses on the day the court issues a judgment granting the complaint or on the day a judgment dismissing it becomes final (Article 61(6)), and from the judgment granting the complaint protection comes from Article 152(1) LPAC: the challenged decision produces no legal effects until the judgment becomes final, unless the court orders otherwise. The financial alternative is voluntary payment of the disputed amount (Article 239g Tax Ordinance), which stops interest; after a win its refund and interest depend on the overpayment conditions of Articles 72 to 78, as explained in the entry on tax overpayment recovery and our article on administrative dilatoriness and the right to interest on tax overpayments. The mere filing of a complaint does not block the crediting of current payments against the disputed arrears; the position differs after a non-final judgment setting the decision aside, when the decision produces no legal effects. The limits of security and enforcement over assets are discussed in our articles on prejudgment security over taxpayer assets, on the seizure of company assets without a court judgment and on what happens when the state freezes your money.

What the court examines and how it rules

The administrative court reviews legality: it does not assess the tax afresh and conducts no assessment proceedings of its own, taking supplementary documentary evidence only where indispensable to clarify material doubts and where this will not unduly prolong the proceedings (Article 106(3) LPAC). It does examine whether the authority properly gathered and evaluated the evidence (Articles 122, 187(1) and 191 Tax Ordinance), ensured the party’s active participation (Articles 123 and 200 Tax Ordinance), gave reasons meeting Article 210(4) Tax Ordinance and correctly interpreted and applied substantive law; defective findings of fact are therefore subject to review, through the lens of a breach of procedural rules. The court rules on the basis of the case file (Article 133(1)) and within the limits of the case, without being bound by the pleas and requests of the complaint (Article 134(1)), which allows it to take account of breaches the complainant overlooked but does not mean that it will substitute itself for the party in demonstrating them. The prohibition on ruling to the complainant’s detriment (Article 134(2)) has one exception: a breach of law resulting in the nullity of the challenged decision.

Granting the complaint, the court sets the decision aside in whole or in part where it finds a breach of substantive law that affected the outcome, a breach giving grounds for reopening, or another procedural breach capable of materially affecting the outcome (Article 145(1)(1)(a) to (c)). Where it also sets aside the first-instance decision, the case returns to the authority, which is bound by the court’s legal assessment and directions (Article 153). The court declares the nullity of a decision issued without legal basis, in gross violation of the law or on other grounds listed in Article 247(1) Tax Ordinance (Article 145(1)(2)). Where special provisions exclude setting aside or a declaration of nullity, for example because of the expiry of the periods referred to in Article 245(1)(3)(b) or Article 247(2) Tax Ordinance, the court declares that the decision was issued in breach of the law (Article 145(1)(3)), which opens the way to damages under Article 260 Tax Ordinance; see the entry on state liability. If, in granting the complaint, the court finds grounds to discontinue the tax proceedings, it discontinues them at the same time (Article 145(3)). In the cases of Article 145(1)(1)(a) or (2), where the circumstances of the case justify it, the court orders the authority to issue a decision within a set time, indicating how the case is to be handled or resolved, unless the resolution is left to the authority’s discretion (Article 145a(1)); a procedural breach under Article 145(1)(1)(c) alone gives no such basis. An unfounded complaint is dismissed (Article 151). The evidentiary defects that lead to annulment are described in the entry on evidence in Polish tax proceedings, defective reasons in our article on defective judicial reasoning, and the grounds for reopening in the entries on the annulment of tax decisions and the reopening of tax proceedings.

In cases with an EU element, especially VAT, the administrative court applies EU law and the case law of the Court of Justice and may refer a question for a preliminary ruling where the interpretation is in doubt (Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The Supreme Administrative Court, as a court of last instance, must refer unless the question is irrelevant to the outcome, has already been clarified by the Court, or the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for reasonable doubt (judgment of 6 October 2021, C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management, developing 283/81 CILFIT). The mechanism and its effect on the case are discussed in the entry on the preliminary reference and in our article on the binding force of CJEU jurisprudence.

Cassation complaint and finality

A judgment of the provincial administrative court may be challenged by a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court within 30 days of service of the judgment with written reasons (Article 177(1)). The cassation complaint is drawn up as a rule by an advocate or a legal adviser, and in tax and customs obligation cases also by a tax adviser; exceptions cover, among others, judges, prosecutors, notaries and persons holding a habilitation in law (Article 175(1) to (3)). It rests on a breach of substantive law by misinterpretation or misapplication, or on a breach of procedural rules capable of materially affecting the outcome (Article 174). The Supreme Administrative Court examines the case within the limits of the cassation complaint (Article 183(1)), taking account ex officio only of nullity of the proceedings; badly formulated cassation grounds are a typical reason for dismissal. A final judgment binds the parties, the authority and the courts (Article 170). According to the Report on the Activity of the Administrative Courts in 2025, the average waiting time for a decision was 4.35 months in the provincial courts and slightly over 17 months in the Supreme Administrative Court; waiving the hearing in the cassation complaint allows the case to be decided in closed session (Articles 176(2) and 182(2)), which usually shortens the wait. After the WSA judgment the party should check which provision currently protects it against enforcement (Article 152(1) LPAC after the complaint is granted, Article 239f Tax Ordinance until the judgment becomes final) and whether the court limited that protection; a new application is not required merely because the case goes to the NSA. Delay on the administration’s side is addressed in our articles on administrative inaction and on administrative law, where the citizen meets the state.

What to check before filing

• The date and manner of service of the appellate decision; count the 30 days from the following day, and from service on the representative where one was appointed.
• Whether the decision is administratively final and the appeal was exhausted; a complaint against a first-instance decision is inadmissible (Articles 52(1) and 58(1)(6) LPAC).
• The channel of filing: through the authority, on paper or via its electronic inbox with the acknowledgement of receipt; when sending through e-Doręczenia, keep the proof of receipt and the NSA rulings in case of a dispute over effectiveness.
• The amount in dispute and the fee; a complaint on which the fee is not paid despite a call is rejected (Article 220(3) LPAC), so the fee should be paid with the complaint.
• The application to stay enforcement: a choice between voluntary security with the authority (Article 239f Tax Ordinance, forms under Article 33d(2)) and an application to the court (Article 61(3) LPAC) with documents showing the risk of significant damage.
• Procedural pleas with a showing of effect on the outcome (evidence disregarded, no period under Article 200 Tax Ordinance, defective reasons) and substantive pleas with a request to set aside both decisions and, where the conditions of Article 145a(1) are met, to order a decision of specified content.
• Limitation: filing suspends the period, and after the decision is set aside with final effect the period runs again from the day after the authority is served with the judgment bearing a certificate of finality (Article 70(7)(2) Tax Ordinance); calculate how much time the authority will have for a new decision; see our articles on tolling and interruption of the statute of limitations and on the decisive moment of service.
• Whether to request the simplified procedure in closed session (Article 119 LPAC) for speed, or a hearing where the positions require oral clarification.

Counterparts in other jurisdictions

German fiscal courts (Finanzgerichte) sit at first instance as specialised courts and establish the facts themselves by taking evidence; revision to the Bundesfinanzhof requires leave and is confined to questions of law (Finanzgerichtsordnung). In the United States a dispute over an income tax deficiency goes to the Tax Court without prior payment after a notice of deficiency, whereas a refund suit before a district court or the Court of Federal Claims requires payment of the tax and a prior claim for refund, with variations depending on the type of tax (IRS Publication 556). In the United Kingdom disputes go to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), and an appeal to the Upper Tribunal requires permission and lies on a point of law, not for a rehearing of the facts. The Polish model of legality review, without substituting the court for the authority in the full assessment procedure, means that a win in court often does not end the case: it returns to the authority, which decides again, bound by the court’s legal assessment.

Frequently asked questions

How long do I have to challenge a Polish tax decision in court?

30 days from service of the appellate authority’s decision (Article 53(1) LPAC). The complaint is filed through the authority that issued the challenged decision; a complaint filed in time directly with the court is nevertheless timely (Article 53(4) LPAC).

How much does a complaint to the administrative court cost?

A proportional fee: 4 percent of the amount in dispute up to PLN 10,000, 3 percent above PLN 10,000 up to PLN 50,000, 2 percent above PLN 50,000 up to PLN 100,000 and 1 percent above PLN 100,000, with minimums of PLN 100, 400, 1,500 and 2,000 and a cap of PLN 100,000; the fixed fee in tax obligation cases without a monetary claim is PLN 500. If the complaint succeeds, the authority reimburses the fee and counsel’s costs at the regulated rates.

Does the complaint stop enforcement?

Not automatically (Article 61(1) LPAC). The first-instance authority withholds enforcement after voluntary security under Article 33d(2) Tax Ordinance is accepted or after the final registration of a compulsory mortgage or treasury pledge (Article 239f Tax Ordinance), and the court may stay it where significant damage or effects difficult to reverse are at risk (Article 61(3) LPAC). After a judgment granting the complaint the decision produces no legal effects until the judgment becomes final (Article 152(1) LPAC).

Can the court reduce the tax or amend the decision?

No. The court reviews legality and sets the decision aside in the cases of Article 145(1) LPAC; where substantive law was breached or the decision is null, it may order the authority to issue a decision of specified content (Article 145a), but it does not assess the tax.

Do I need a lawyer?

A party may generally act without professional representation before the WSA. A cassation complaint to the NSA must, as a rule, be drawn up by an advocate or legal adviser, or in tax obligation cases by a tax adviser, subject to the statutory exceptions in Article 175 LPAC.

Does filing the complaint affect limitation?

Yes. Filing suspends the limitation period of the liability, which runs again from the day after the authority is served with the final judgment (Article 70(6)(2) and (7)(2) Tax Ordinance).

Related entries

• Appeal against a tax decision
• Tax decision
• Annulment of tax decisions
• Evidence in Polish tax proceedings
• Statute of limitations for tax obligations
• Tax overpayment recovery
• Administrative inaction
• Preliminary reference

Skarbiec Law Firm represents taxpayers before the provincial administrative courts and the Supreme Administrative Court as part of its court litigation practice and representation in tax disputes before the courts, including cases in which a stay of enforcement decides the survival of the business.

Legal status as of 1 November 2026.

Robert Nogacki

Robert Nogacki is a Polish attorney at law (radca prawny), the founder and managing partner of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec (Skarbiec Law Firm), which has operated continuously since 2006.

The law is equal for everyone, but the parties rarely are: on one side stands an organization with time, money, and lawyers, on the other a person with one business, one nest egg, and one life.

Clients rarely come to him with a legal problem. They come with a problem that also has a legal side: an audit that began with a single invoice, money entrusted to someone who has disappeared, a company that has to be passed on before it is too late. Most such matters are decided long before the first letter is written, in decisions made without asking and in deadlines nobody remembered. So he begins by asking how the client got here, not what the client should have done.

He advises entrepreneurs and families from more than a dozen countries, including those whose accounts the tax office has just seized and who do not know what to do tomorrow morning. He defends them in tax audits, customs and fiscal inspections, disputes with the tax authorities, and criminal tax proceedings. He represents victims of investment fraud and Ponzi schemes. He helps families set up family foundations and plan succession, so that a life’s work outlasts a single generation.

Not every case can be won. Every case can be run so that the client knows where they stand. Since 2006 he has represented the victims in the WGI case (Warszawska Grupa Inwestycyjna, the Warsaw Investment Group), one of the longest criminal cases in the history of the Polish financial market, because some things must not be left half finished, even when they take two decades. In the case of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange Zonda (Zondacrypto, operated by BB Trade Estonia OÜ), he represents several hundred victims in the criminal investigation conducted by Poland’s National Prosecutor’s Office and in the Estonian bankruptcy proceedings.

Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec is listed in the rankings of Poland’s largest tax advisory firms published by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna and Rzeczpospolita, and it is a four-time recipient (2015 to 2018) of the European Medal awarded by the Business Centre Club and the European Economic and Social Committee. Robert Nogacki publishes regularly, in the press and on the firm’s website, for people who have a problem rather than a law degree, because a legal opinion the client cannot understand protects only the lawyer.

He believes that the best legal advice is the kind that means the client never has to appear in court.