Inaction of the tax authority in Poland

Inaction of the tax authority (bezczynność organu) means that the authority has not resolved a case within the applicable time limit. The limit is set by statute or by the authority itself when it notifies the party of a new date. The test is not whether the office is doing something, but whether the case was resolved on time. An authority may keep sending summonses and notices and still be inactive.

Undue delay (przewlekłość) means conducting a case for longer than is necessary to resolve it: sham steps, repeated requests for documents the authority already holds, gaps of many months. Both breaches may occur in the same case. Both violate the principle of expedition in Article 125 of the Tax Ordinance Act of 29 August 1997 (Ordynacja podatkowa, the Tax Ordinance).

The remedies are the same for both. The first is a formal request to expedite the proceedings, known in Polish as ponaglenie (Article 141 of the Tax Ordinance). The second is a complaint to the provincial administrative court (WSA), which orders the authority to resolve the case within a set period, assesses whether the breach was gross, and may fine the authority or award the party a sum of money (Article 3 § 2(8) and Article 149 of the Act of 30 August 2002, Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, the LPAC).

Delay also has financial consequences. After the statutory periods expire, late-payment interest stops accruing, a tax ruling not issued in time becomes a tacit ruling in the applicant’s favour, and a VAT refund withheld beyond the deadline bears interest. A judgment finding inaction opens the way to a claim for damages against the State Treasury.

Key points

1. Time limits (Article 139 of the Tax Ordinance): a case must be resolved without undue delay and no later than one month; a particularly complex case within two months; an appeal within two months of its receipt by the appellate authority, or three months where a hearing was held or the party requested one. Periods listed in Article 139 § 4 are not counted: time allowed for specific procedural steps, periods of suspension, and delays caused by the party or by causes beyond the authority’s control. Expiry of these limits does not deprive the authority of its power to decide, but it opens remedies to the party. The authority must notify the party of every delay, stating the reasons and a new date (Article 140).
2. The request to expedite (Article 141 § 1 of the Tax Ordinance) is lodged with the tax authority of the higher instance. Where the case was not resolved by the Director of the National Tax Information Office or by a Director of a Tax Administration Chamber, it is lodged with the Head of the National Revenue Administration (KAS). An authority that finds the request justified sets an additional deadline, orders an explanation of the causes and the identification of the persons responsible, and states whether the failure amounted to a gross violation of the law (Article 141 § 2). The statute sets no separate time limit for deciding the request.
3. A complaint on inaction or undue delay may be filed with the WSA at any time after the request to expedite has been lodged, without waiting for it to be decided (Article 53 § 2b LPAC). The court fee is PLN 100. The court orders the authority to resolve the case within a set period, finds inaction or undue delay, and rules whether it occurred with a gross violation of the law (Article 149 § 1 and § 1a LPAC). It may also fine the authority up to ten times the average monthly wage or award the complainant a sum of money up to half that amount (Article 149 § 2 in conjunction with Article 154 § 6 LPAC).
4. Late-payment interest does not accrue for the period from the opening of proceedings to service of the first-instance decision if the decision was not served within three months of the opening (Article 54 § 1(7) of the Tax Ordinance). In appellate proceedings the exclusion covers the period from expiry of the Article 139 § 3 deadline to service of the appellate decision (point 3). The exclusion does not apply where the party or its representative contributed to the delay, or where the delay arose for reasons beyond the authority’s control (Article 54 § 2). Audits lasting more than six months are governed by a separate rule in Article 54 § 1(7c), discussed in the entry on prolonged tax audits.
5. Timing matters. A complaint on inaction filed after the proceedings have ended with a final decision is not examined on the merits as regards the finding of inaction (resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 June 2020, II OPS 5/19). A complaint on undue delay filed after the final conclusion of the proceedings is rejected (resolution of 7 March 2022, II OPS 1/21). If, however, the authority issues its decision only after the complaint was filed, the court still assesses whether inaction or undue delay occurred and whether it was gross.
6. Damages for loss caused by failure to issue a decision in time require a prior finding, in the proper procedure, that the failure was unlawful (Article 417¹ § 3 of the Civil Code). A judgment of the administrative court finding inaction is that prior finding. The claim becomes time-barred three years after the day on which the injured party learned, or with due diligence could have learned, of the damage and of the person liable, and in any event ten years after the event (Article 442¹ § 1 of the Civil Code).

Inaction, undue delay and non-enforcement of a judgment

Inaction does not require complete passivity. The reference point is the time limit: if it has passed and the case has not been resolved, the authority is inactive, however many letters accumulate in the file. Undue delay concerns the manner of conducting the case. The case law points to sham steps, requests for documents the authority already holds, gaps between steps measured in months, and extensions of the deadline without any indication of what remains to be done.

Both allegations may be raised in one complaint. The court is not bound by the allegations and motions of the complaint or by the legal basis invoked (Article 134 § 1 LPAC), but a precise description of the relief sought gives the case structure: an order to act, a finding of the breach, a motion to classify it as gross, a motion for a sum of money and for a fine. The same description later becomes the basis for quantifying the loss.

The third form of breach is non-enforcement of a judgment upholding the complaint. The party first demands in writing that the authority enforce the judgment or resolve the case, and then files a complaint under Article 154 LPAC. The court fines the authority, may award a sum of money, and states whether the non-enforcement amounted to a gross violation of the law. Loss caused by non-enforcement is compensated under the Civil Code; the claim is first addressed to the authority, and if it has not paid within three months of the application, the claimant may sue in the ordinary court (Article 154 § 4 and § 5 LPAC).

Undue length of tax audits and customs and fiscal audits is governed by its own deadlines and limits, described in the entry on prolonged tax audits.

The request to expedite (ponaglenie)

The request to expedite is a remedy against failure to resolve a case in time and, at the same time, a precondition of the court complaint. The statute counts it among the means of challenge whose exhaustion opens the way to court (Article 52 § 2 LPAC). It also has its own effects: the higher authority may set an additional deadline, order an explanation of the causes and identify the persons at fault (Article 141 § 2 of the Tax Ordinance), and an official who failed to resolve a case without justification is subject to disciplinary liability (Article 142).

The addressee is named in Article 141 § 1: the tax authority of the higher instance, and in cases not resolved by the Director of the National Tax Information Office or a Director of a Tax Administration Chamber, the Head of KAS. The Tax Ordinance does not require the request to be lodged through the authority conducting the case. The request should identify the case, the date of opening, the deadline that has expired (statutory or set in the notice under Article 140), the omissions, and the demand that a date for resolving the case be set.

The statute sets no separate time limit for deciding the request. There is no need to wait for it: the court complaint may be filed the day after the request is lodged (Article 53 § 2b LPAC). In practice the request is best drafted as the skeleton of the complaint, with the same dates, the same description of the omissions and the same demand. It documents that the authority was called upon to act, which the court takes into account when assessing whether the breach was gross.

The complaint to the administrative court

The complaint is filed through the authority whose inaction or undue delay it concerns. The fixed court fee is PLN 100 (section 2(1)(6) of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 16 December 2003 on court fees in administrative court proceedings). The mechanics of bringing cases before the administrative courts are described on our page on appeals and complaints to administrative courts in Poland.

Upholding the complaint, the court orders the authority to issue the act or take the step within a set period, finds that the authority was inactive or unduly slow, and rules whether this occurred with a gross violation of the law (Article 149 § 1 and § 1a LPAC). If the authority issued its decision after the complaint was filed, the court can no longer order it to act, but it still assesses whether a breach occurred and whether it was gross. That assessment matters for the sum of money and for a later claim in damages.

The fine on the authority may reach ten times the average monthly wage in the national economy in the preceding year, and the sum of money awarded to the complainant half that amount (Article 149 § 2 in conjunction with Article 154 § 6 LPAC). The sum of money compensates for the waiting itself and does not depend on proof of loss. The courts find a gross violation where deadlines were exceeded many times over, where there is no justification at all, and where requests to expedite and earlier judgments were ignored. Examples from practice are described in our articles The Tax Office That Cried Wolf and Impermissible Actions in a Democratic Rule-of-Law State.

The decision to file must be taken before the authority closes the case. A complaint on inaction filed after a final decision is not examined on the merits (II OPS 5/19), and a complaint on undue delay filed after the final conclusion of the proceedings is rejected (II OPS 1/21). A cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court lies against the WSA judgment; the court route is described in the entry on the complaint to the administrative court against a tax decision.

Consequences of inaction for the tax account

The statute provides sanctions that operate by law. Late-payment interest does not accrue for the period from the opening of proceedings to service of the first-instance decision if the decision was not served within three months of the opening (Article 54 § 1(7) of the Tax Ordinance), nor for the period from the day after expiry of the deadline for deciding the appeal to service of the appellate decision (point 3). The exclusion falls away where the party or its representative contributed to the delay, or where the delay arose for reasons beyond the authority’s control (Article 54 § 2). In disputes over large amounts this mechanism is worth more than any fine: a year’s interest exceeds any sum of money the court may award. The calculation of the excluded periods should be presented to the authority before the decision is issued and, in case of dispute, in overpayment proceedings; see our article on administrative dilatoriness and interest on tax overpayments.

An individual tax ruling not issued within three months of the application is deemed issued, on the day after the deadline, in a version confirming the applicant’s position in full (Article 14o). How to prepare the application is explained in the entry on individual tax rulings.

The basic VAT refund period is 40 days from the filing of the return and applies to settlement periods from 1 February 2026 (Article 87(2) of the VAT Act; Ministry of Finance guidance on VAT deduction and refunds). The statute also provides periods of 25, 15 and 180 days. A refund that the authority neither made in time nor extended by a ruling bears interest as an overpayment (Article 87(7)). An unjustified extension may be challenged, as explained on our page on VAT refund delays in Poland.

Inaction does not suspend the limitation period. An authority that delays acts to its own detriment, because the liability becomes time-barred under the rules described in the entry on the statute of limitations for tax obligations. A separate problem is inaction in fiscal penal proceedings opened only to suspend limitation. The administrative courts treat it as evidence of an instrumental opening; see our article on the inaction of tax authorities in fiscal criminal proceedings.

Damages

Compensation for loss caused by failure to issue a decision may be claimed only after it has been established, in the proper procedure, that the failure was unlawful (Article 417¹ § 3 of the Civil Code). The proper procedure is the complaint on inaction. A judgment finding inaction opens the way to the civil court whether or not the court classified the breach as gross.

The loss covers actual damage and lost profits in a normal causal link with the delay: the cost of financing a frozen VAT refund, lost contracts, the cost of security and, in protracted assessment proceedings, interest the authority failed to exclude. The courts dismiss claims based on the mere fact of inaction, so the loss should be documented from the first day of delay. The claim becomes time-barred three years after the injured party learned of the loss and of the person liable, and in any event ten years after the event (Article 442¹ § 1 of the Civil Code). How such claims are pursued is described on our page on state liability for the acts of tax authorities.

What to check when the authority does not act

1. Which deadline has passed: under Article 139, under the Article 140 notice, three months for a ruling, the VAT refund deadline. A notice of a new date does not change the statutory deadline; it only documents the delay.
2. What is in the file. Inspection of the file (Article 178 of the Tax Ordinance) distinguishes inaction from undue delay and gathers evidence of a gross violation: dates of steps, repeated summonses, gaps.
3. The request to expedite, addressed to the competent authority, describing the delay and demanding a date. The court complaint without waiting for a reply.
4. The scope of the complaint: an order to issue the act, a finding of inaction or undue delay, a motion to classify the breach as gross, a motion for a sum of money and for a fine. Fee PLN 100.
5. Timing: before a final decision is issued.
6. Interest: a calculation of the periods excluded under Article 54 and a request to reflect them in the decision or in overpayment proceedings.
7. Loss: documented from the first day of delay, because the judgment finding inaction opens the claim, but the amount must be proven.

Counsel handling disputes with the tax authority usually runs these steps as one sequence: the request to expedite, the complaint with a motion for a sum of money, and a running record of the loss.

Counterparts in other jurisdictions

In Germany the action for inaction (Untätigkeitsklage, section 46 of the Finanzgerichtsordnung) is generally available six months after an objection was lodged and left undecided without a sufficient reason. In Austria the party may bring a Säumnisbeschwerde before the Bundesfinanzgericht when the authority has not issued a decision within six months (section 284 of the Bundesabgabenordnung). Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees the handling of matters within a reasonable time, but it is addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union; as against Polish tax authorities, the right to good administration operates as a general principle of EU law in matters governed by that law, such as VAT. The Polish model combines the request to expedite, a complaint with a monetary sanction and civil damages. Its weakness remains the absence of a deadline for deciding the request and the fact that expiry of the time limits does not deprive the authority of its power to decide.

Frequently asked questions

How long does a Polish tax office have to issue a decision?

One month from the opening of proceedings, two months in a particularly complex case. In appellate proceedings two months from receipt of the appeal, or three months where a hearing was held or the party requested one (Article 139 of the Tax Ordinance). The authority must notify the party of every delay, stating the reasons and a new date (Article 140).

What can I do if the tax office does not issue a decision?

Lodge a request to expedite (ponaglenie) with the higher authority or, in cases not resolved by the Director of the National Tax Information Office or a Director of a Tax Administration Chamber, with the Head of KAS (Article 141 of the Tax Ordinance). Then, without waiting for it to be decided, file a complaint on inaction or undue delay with the provincial administrative court (Article 53 § 2b LPAC), requesting a finding of gross violation of the law and a sum of money.

What is the difference between inaction and undue delay?

Inaction is failure to resolve the case within the time limit, regardless of whether the authority takes any steps. Undue delay is conducting the case for longer than necessary, through sham or ineffective steps. Both are challenged by the same complaint and may occur together.

Is money payable for the authority’s inaction?

The administrative court may award the complainant a sum of money up to half of ten times the average monthly wage and fine the authority (Article 149 § 2 LPAC). Damages for actual loss are claimed before the civil court after a judgment finding inaction (Article 417¹ § 3 of the Civil Code).

Does the authority’s inaction affect interest?

Yes. Interest does not accrue for the period from the opening of proceedings to service of the decision if it was not served within three months, nor for the period of delay in appellate proceedings (Article 54 § 1(3) and (7) of the Tax Ordinance). The exclusion does not apply where the party or its representative contributed to the delay, or where the delay arose for reasons beyond the authority’s control.

Can inaction be challenged after the decision is issued?

A complaint on inaction filed after a final decision is not examined on the merits (resolution II OPS 5/19), and a complaint on undue delay filed after the final conclusion of the proceedings is rejected (resolution II OPS 1/21). A complaint filed earlier remains effective as to the finding of the breach and the sum of money, even if the authority issues the decision during the court proceedings.

Related entries

1. Prolonged tax audits in Poland
2. Tax proceedings in Poland
3. Tax decision
4. Complaint to the administrative court against a tax decision
5. VAT refund delays in Poland
6. Individual tax rulings
7. Statute of limitations for tax obligations

Skarbiec Law Firm conducts complaints on inaction and undue delay of tax authorities and claims for damages for delays in tax cases as part of its tax proceedings practice.

Legal status as of 2 November 2026.

Selected Publications from Skarbiec Law Firm

The Tax Office That Cried Wolf

Tax Authorities’ Systematic Defeats: Criminal Proceedings as Limitation Period Manipulation

Robert Nogacki, September 29, 2021 — Fiscal authorities possess five years to pursue tax obligations from taxpayers. When, despite this substantial period, they cannot locate evidence justifying claimed obligations, they artificially extend limitation periods by initiating criminal fiscal proceedings against entrepreneurs. Until recently, mere proceeding initiation sufficed to achieve desired effects. Everything changed in May 2021 when the Supreme Administrative Court decisively rejected such instrumental organ activities.

The court’s reasoning merits careful attention. It determined that criminal proceeding initiation creates legitimate limitation suspension only when authorities diligently pursue investigations demonstrating good faith efforts to resolve factual uncertainties. Conversely, when authorities initiate proceedings then systematically fail to conduct investigative activities—taking no witness testimony, requesting no documents, performing no forensic analyses—the formal proceeding existence cannot suspend limitations.

This holding addresses a persistent abuse pattern wherein tax authorities, confronting imminent claim prescription, initiated criminal proceedings as a tactical maneuver preserving claims indefinitely. The minimal activity required to maintain nominal proceeding existence—perhaps occasional pro forma status inquiries—enabled authorities to circumvent limitation rules’ substantive purpose: providing reasonable investigation periods while preventing indefinite claim preservation.

The decision’s implications extend beyond criminal proceeding contexts. The underlying principle—that procedural mechanisms cannot be exploited to defeat substantive rights—applies broadly across administrative law domains. Authorities increasingly face scrutiny not merely regarding technical procedural compliance but whether their conduct serves legitimate regulatory purposes or constitutes tactical manipulation.

Impermissible Actions in a Democratic Rule-of-Law State

Robert Nogacki, January 30, 2020 — An entrepreneur twice prevailed in court disputes with fiscal authorities regarding VAT refunds. Despite judicial orders requiring payment, the organ persistently declined to remit funds. Courts sanctioned this conduct through fines, characterizing the inaction as flagrant law violation. Notwithstanding these sanctions, the organ continued withholding over 4 million złoty lawfully due to the entrepreneur.

This case exemplifies the most troubling administrative inaction form: deliberate non-compliance with definitive judicial determinations. Unlike situations where resource constraints or organizational dysfunction explain delays, here the authority possessed both the legal obligation (established through final judgments) and the practical capacity (as the refund derived from previously collected taxes) to comply, yet chose persistent defiance.

Courts characterized this conduct as “impermissible in a democratic rule-of-law state”—language underscoring the fundamental constitutional principles at stake. The rule of law demands not merely that courts possess authority to determine rights but that executive organs respect and implement judicial determinations. When authorities systematically defy judicial orders, the entire constitutional structure separating powers and subjecting executive action to judicial oversight faces erosion.

The escalating fine mechanism, while theoretically powerful, proved inadequate against determined non-compliance. This enforcement gap reveals structural limitations in administrative law systems where courts can declare rights and impose sanctions but typically cannot directly execute judgments against governmental entities. Addressing such intransigence may require enhanced enforcement mechanisms, including potential personal liability for officials directing non-compliance or budgetary consequences for systematically non-compliant agencies.

Nine-Year Investigation Inaction Following Criminal Proceeding Initiation

Robert Nogacki, November 9, 2021 — In April 2008, a company filed a tax return correction with the tax office for 2007, declaring income exceeding 170,000 złoty and corporate income tax liability of 32,000 złoty. After over eleven years, in September 2019, the customs and fiscal office director issued a decision determining that the company understated revenue and overstated costs during the return period, recalculating tax obligations.

Why did authorities revisit the entrepreneur’s settlements after eleven years? Because before the five-year limitation period expired, they initiated criminal fiscal proceedings, suspending limitation, despite taking no investigative actions for nine years.

This case represents an extreme example of limitation manipulation through sham criminal proceedings. The eleven-year gap between filing and reassessment-with nine years of complete investigative inaction-demonstrates that the criminal proceeding served no legitimate investigative purpose. Rather, it functioned purely as a tactical device preserving otherwise time-barred claims.

The pattern proves particularly troubling because it weaponizes criminal law-traditionally reserved for society’s most serious norm violations-as a routine tax collection tool. Converting criminal proceedings from exceptional enforcement mechanisms addressing genuine fraud into routine devices for circumventing limitation periods not only distorts criminal law purposes but also subjects taxpayers to investigation stigma and uncertainty far exceeding what civil tax dispute processes entail.

Following the Supreme Administrative Court’s 2021 precedent, such practices face increasing judicial skepticism. Courts now examine whether purported criminal investigations demonstrate genuine prosecutorial activity or merely maintain formal proceeding existence to suspend limitations. This heightened scrutiny should deter future abuse, though ultimate effectiveness depends upon consistent judicial application and potential sanctions for authorities engaging in pretextual proceedings.

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.