How the Tax Office Enforces Tax Liabilities in Poland

When the Tax Authority Comes Knocking

Asset seizure by the tax office represents the ultimate coercive measure in the fiscal arsenal. Before the tax bailiff knocks at your door, however, the taxpayer passes through a sequence of events—knowledge of which may determine the fate of his assets. The crucial question is this: can one effectively protect oneself, and where exactly does the line fall between lawful protection and criminal conduct?

Security vs. Seizure: A Fundamental Distinction

Before proceeding to specifics, we must precisely distinguish two institutions that are often confused in practice, though they serve different purposes and operate under different rules.

Security for Tax Liabilities

Security is a provisional measure applied before arrears arise or during proceedings. Its purpose is not to satisfy the tax creditor but to guarantee that a future obligation can be enforced. Security:

• may be imposed before the tax payment deadline (Article 33 § 1 of the Tax Ordinance),
• may be applied during a tax audit or customs-fiscal audit, even before a decision is issued (Article 33 § 2),
• does not transfer ownership of seized assets to the State Treasury,
• is subject to revocation when the grounds for its application cease,
• expires by operation of law after specified time limits or upon issuance of an assessment decision.

Enforcement Seizure

Seizure is an enforcement measure applied after tax arrears have arisen, when the taxpayer has failed to settle the obligation voluntarily. Its purpose is compulsory satisfaction of the creditor. Seizure:

• constitutes an element of enforcement proceedings conducted on the basis of an enforcement title,
• interrupts the limitation period for tax liabilities,
• leads to liquidation of assets and satisfaction of the creditor.

The Common Thread

Both institutions share one feature: they restrict the taxpayer’s right to dispose of assets. For an entrepreneur whose bank account has been frozen, the theoretical difference between “security” and “seizure” may seem academic—the practical effect is similar. Therefore, below we discuss both formulas: those securing future claims and those serving final creditor satisfaction.

Part I: Security for Tax Liabilities

Security Before the Payment Deadline

Most taxpayers assume that enforcement threatens only after the payment deadline has passed. This is an error that can cost them their assets. Under Article 33 of the Tax Ordinance, if there is a justified concern that the tax liability will not be discharged, the authority may impose security even before arrears arise.

What constitutes “justified concern”? Administrative court jurisprudence from recent years has refined this general clause. As the Provincial Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski noted (judgment of 17 October 2024, I SA/Go 224/24): “Justified concern must exist at the moment of ruling on security, yet this concern relates to an event that has not yet occurred.” Tax authorities need not prove that the taxpayer will not pay—demonstrating such a risk is sufficient.

Grounds for Security

Grounds for security include, in particular:

• persistent non-payment of public-law obligations,
• disposal of assets that may impede enforcement,
• concealment of income,
• use of unreliable invoices,
• maintaining accounting records inconsistent with accounting principles.

The catalogue remains open—the authority may invoke any circumstances that demonstrate the risk of non-performance.

Security During Audits

Security may be imposed during a tax audit or customs-fiscal audit. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 12 June 2024 (I FSK 101/24) confirmed that the competence to issue a security decision does not require service of audit findings—the authority may act earlier.

What Recent Case Law Says About Security Decisions

Administrative court practice from 2024-2025 provides guidance for taxpayers challenging security decisions:

Obligation to provide reasons. The Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław (judgment of 4 July 2024, I SA/Wr 281/24) emphasized: “The requirement that the authority demonstrate the existence of the tax liability itself in the amount anticipated by the tax authority does not in any way permit unsubstantiated, arbitrary, groundless, or unlawful assertions.”

Taxpayer’s financial situation. The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 25 October 2024 (II FSK 947/24) stated: “Neither the anticipated amount of the liability nor its nature can constitute sufficient grounds for applying compulsory security. It is further necessary that the taxpayer’s financial condition indicate that enforcement proceedings would be ineffective.”

Empty invoices and security. The Provincial Administrative Court in Gliwice (judgment of 6 February 2025, I SA/Gl 937/24) held: “Mere demonstration that the taxpayer uses invoices that do not reflect actual business transactions does not yet justify imposing security on the taxpayer’s assets.” This finding must be linked to analysis of the party’s asset resources.

A security decision may be appealed, followed by a complaint to the Provincial Administrative Court and a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Part II: Enforcement of Tax Liabilities

Soft Persuasion

When the expected tax from a PIT or CIT return fails to appear in the tax office’s account, the office does not immediately reach for coercive measures. Regulations on creditor proceedings for monetary claims provide for “informational activities” toward the debtor in oral or written form, aimed at voluntary settlement of arrears—in practice, these may be text messages, emails, or telephone calls informing of the arrears and consequences of non-payment.

Officials employ these forms primarily with conscientious taxpayers for low amounts. The final call is a written demand notice requesting voluntary payment together with notice costs and default interest.

Initiation of Enforcement Proceedings

If the debtor fails to settle the obligation within 7 days of service of the demand notice, enforcement proceedings are initiated. Key consequence: application of an enforcement measure interrupts the limitation period for the tax liability. Therefore, toward year-end, offices intensify their activities—the aim is to prevent limitation.

What the Tax Office May Seize

Under Article 26 of the Tax Ordinance, the taxpayer is liable for tax obligations with his entire assets. For an entrepreneur, this means the possibility of seizing both business property (goods, receivables from supplies, funds in business accounts) and personal assets:

• cash,
• employment remuneration,
• savings,
• pensions, annuities,
• company shares,
• vehicles,
• real estate.

Bank account seizure is one of the most frequently applied measures—effective and swift from the tax authority’s perspective.

Part III: Asset Protection—The Boundaries of Legality

Entrepreneurs seeking ways to protect assets from creditors must understand where the line falls between permissible prevention and crime.

Lawful Protection Instruments

Actions taken before a liability arises or when there are no grounds for security may include:

• choosing an appropriate legal form for conducting business—a limited liability company separates personal assets from business assets,
• establishing marital property separation,
• a family foundation serving succession and asset protection,
• diversifying assets among different asset classes and jurisdictions,
• investment policies with specific legal characteristics.

Actions Risking Criminal Liability

Asset transfers made in the face of existing or anticipated liabilities may result in charges of:

• acting to creditors’ detriment (Article 300 of the Criminal Code)—when the debtor frustrates or diminishes creditor satisfaction by concealing, disposing of, or encumbering assets,
• money laundering (Article 299 of the Criminal Code)—when doubts exist as to the legal origin of funds,
• sham bankruptcy (Article 301 of the Criminal Code)—when actions aim to create fictitious insolvency.

The creditor (including the tax authority) may also bring a civil action under the actio Pauliana, seeking to have the disposition declared ineffective.

Time as a Critical Variable

Protective structures must be established before a threat appears. A foundation created the day before an asset security order is issued will protect nothing—it will be analyzed for fraudulent transfer. Effective protection means planning in peacetime, not improvisation under attack.

Part IV: Liability of Company Board Members

In the case of limited liability companies, enforcement against company assets may prove ineffective. The tax authority then reaches for board members’ liability for the company’s tax obligations under Article 116 of the Tax Ordinance, as well as civil liability under Article 299 of the Commercial Companies Code.

A board member may escape liability by demonstrating that:

• a bankruptcy petition was filed or restructuring proceedings were initiated in due time, or
• failure to file was not his fault, or
• by indicating company assets sufficient to satisfy the arrears.

Summary

Asset seizure and security by the tax office are processes with their own logic and sequence. Knowledge of regulations, case law, and available defensive measures enables informed action—whether in a dispute with the tax authority or in preventive risk management.

The key distinction remains between:

• security (provisional measure, before or during proceedings),
• enforcement seizure (coercive measure, after arrears arise),
• lawful asset protection (preventive actions in peacetime),
• criminal conduct (transfers in the face of existing obligations).

This distinction requires professional analysis of the specific situation—universal prescriptions do not exist.

See also:

• Asset Protection – Fortifying What You’ve Built
• Customs and Fiscal Audit
• Tax Proceedings
• Tax Decision – How to Appeal

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.