Annulment and setting aside of tax decisions in Poland

2026.11.02 Author: Robert Nogacki

Setting aside a tax decision (uchylenie decyzji podatkowej) means removing it from legal circulation, in whole or in part, by the appellate authority, the administrative court or an authority acting in one of the extraordinary procedures. Polish law provides three routes. In the ordinary course a non-final decision is set aside by the appellate authority (Article 233 of the Tax Ordinance Act of 29 August 1997, the Tax Ordinance; consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2026, item 622, as amended), and a decision that is final in the administrative course by the administrative court where it finds a breach of law affecting the outcome (Article 145 of the Act of 30 August 2002, Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, the LPAC; consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2026, item 143). In the extraordinary procedures a final decision is challenged by reopening the proceedings (Articles 240 to 246), by a declaration of nullity (Articles 247 to 252), by revocation or amendment (Articles 253 to 256) and by a declaration of expiry (Article 258), while a decision granting deferral or instalments expires by operation of law where the deadlines are missed (Article 67da). Each procedure has its own grounds, time limits and boundaries. Limitation restricts the extraordinary procedures: where a new decision could no longer be issued, the authority refuses to set the decision aside in reopened proceedings and refuses to declare nullity, merely declaring its defects (Articles 245 § 1(3)(b) and 247 § 2), but it does not prevent setting aside on appeal or by the court.

Key points

Ordinary course: the appellate authority sets the decision aside and decides on the merits, sets it aside and discontinues the proceedings, or remands the case (Article 233 § 1(2) and § 2); the administrative court sets a final decision aside for a breach of substantive law affecting the outcome, a breach giving grounds for reopening, or another procedural breach capable of materially affecting the outcome (Article 145 § 1(1) LPAC).
Reopening of proceedings (Article 240 § 1) is available where, among other things, evidence proved false, the decision resulted from a criminal offence, the party through no fault of its own did not take part, new circumstances or evidence existing on the date of the decision but unknown to the authority come to light, or the Constitutional Tribunal or the Court of Justice of the EU has ruled in a manner affecting the decision. A request based on non-participation or a tribunal ruling must be filed within one month (Article 241 § 2). New evidence need not have been unknown to the party (Supreme Administrative Court resolution of 13 October 2025, II FPS 3/25).
Declaration of nullity (Article 247 § 1) concerns a decision issued in breach of jurisdiction, without legal basis, in gross violation of the law, in a case already decided, addressed to a person who is not a party, permanently unenforceable on the date of issue, containing a defect rendering it null by statute, or whose execution would constitute a punishable act. After 5 years from service the authority refuses to open proceedings, also ex officio; after the court has dismissed a complaint, proceedings may be opened only on the ground of a case already decided (Article 249).
Revocation or amendment of a final decision on grounds of expediency (Articles 253 and 253a) does not extend to decisions assessing or determining a liability, on the liability of withholding agents, collectors, third parties and heirs, determining interest or the amount of a refund (Article 253b); an assessment or determination decision for a given period may be amended only where the facts changed after service and the statute provides for the consequences of that change (Article 254). A request made more than 5 years after service does not open proceedings (Article 256).
Limitation restricts the extraordinary procedures: the authority refuses to set the decision aside in reopened proceedings and refuses to declare nullity where a new decision could no longer be issued because of the periods of Articles 68, 70 or 118, declaring in its decision that the decision contains defects (Articles 245 § 1(3)(b) and § 2, 247 § 2 and 3), subject to decisions in double taxation dispute resolution (Article 70d). Limitation does not close the appeal or the court complaint.
A defective decision that has been set aside or declared unlawful opens the way to damages under the civil law (Article 260), after its unlawfulness has been established in the proper procedure; setting aside alone does not establish the damage or the causal link.

The ordinary course: the appellate authority and the court

As long as a decision is not final, the only way to set it aside is the appeal, in which the second-instance authority re-examines the case and may set the decision aside in whole or in part, deciding on the merits, discontinuing the proceedings or remanding the case where evidentiary proceedings must be conducted in whole or in substantial part (Article 233). The rules and time limits are described in the entry on the appeal against a tax decision. A final decision is set aside by the administrative court within the limits of the case, without being bound by the pleas, but setting aside requires a showing that a breach of substantive law affected the outcome and that a procedural breach could have had a material effect (Article 145 § 1(1)(a) and (c) LPAC); a breach giving grounds for reopening justifies setting aside without examining its effect (point (b)). The court applies the measures needed to remove the breach to all acts issued within the limits of the case, so it may also set aside the first-instance decision (Article 135 LPAC), and where the circumstances justify it, may order the authority to issue within a set period a decision of specified content, unless the matter was left to the authority’s discretion (Article 145a LPAC); the legal assessment in the judgment binds the authority (Article 153 LPAC). The course of judicial review, costs and stay of enforcement are described in the entry on the complaint to the administrative court and in the articles on appeals to administrative courts and representation in tax disputes before the courts. Limitation of the liability is no obstacle for the court or the appellate authority: a decision determining a liability that expired through limitation is set aside and the proceedings discontinued (Supreme Administrative Court resolutions of 3 December 2012, I FPS 1/12, and 29 September 2014, II FPS 4/13), as explained in our article on the statute of limitations and the decisive moment of service.

The defects that most often lead to setting aside are an incomplete evidentiary record and its selective evaluation (Articles 122, 187 § 1 and 191), evidentiary motions ignored (Article 188), materials from other proceedings used without an opportunity for the party to comment (Article 192), no period set under Article 200 before the decision, unresolved doubts about the facts decided against the party contrary to Article 122 § 2, and reasons that do not engage with the party’s arguments (Article 210 § 4). Setting aside on these grounds does not end the case: the authority decides again, bound by the court’s assessment, and may issue a decision of the same content once it supplements the proceedings. Substantive pleas that determine the absence of a liability are therefore worth more than procedural pleas that determine only a repeat; the pattern of defective reasoning is described in our article on defective judicial reasoning. Where a decision is set aside and no new decision is required, the overpayment is refunded within 30 days of the decision setting it aside or of service on the authority of the final judgment, with interest from the date the overpayment arose where the authority contributed to the ground for setting aside (Articles 77 § 1(3) and 78 § 3(1) as worded from 1 October 2026); see the article on administrative dilatoriness and interest on overpayments.

Reopening of proceedings

Reopening allows a case closed by a final decision to be re-examined because of defects in its factual or legal basis that came to light after it was issued. The list of grounds in Article 240 § 1 is exhaustive and includes: false evidence on which the findings were based; a decision issued as a result of a criminal offence; a decision issued by an employee or authority subject to exclusion; the party’s non-participation in the proceedings without its fault; new factual circumstances or new evidence existing on the date of the decision but unknown to the authority; new circumstances or evidence indicating tax avoidance, abuse of law in VAT or the applicability of measures limiting treaty benefits (point 5a); a decision issued without the required position of another authority; a decision based on another decision or judgment subsequently set aside, amended, expired or declared null; a decision based on a provision found by the Constitutional Tribunal to be inconsistent with the Constitution, a statute or a ratified treaty; the effect of a ratified international agreement, including a double tax treaty, on the decision; the effect of a decision reached in a double taxation dispute resolution procedure; the effect of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU; and the effect of the rights under Article 119j § 1, available to other parties after the general anti-avoidance rule was applied (point 12).

Ground (Article 240 § 1)	Who initiates	Time limit
False evidence, criminal offence, exclusion of the official (points 1 to 3)	ex officio or on request	no separate limit; limitation under Article 245 § 1(3)(b) is the boundary
Non-participation of the party without fault (point 4)	only on the party’s request	one month from learning of the decision (Article 241 § 2(1))
New circumstances or evidence unknown to the authority (points 5 and 5a)	ex officio or on request	no separate limit; the evidence must have existed on the date of the decision
Missing position of another authority, collapse of the underlying decision or judgment (points 6 and 7)	ex officio or on request	no separate limit
Constitutional Tribunal judgment (point 8)	only on request	one month from the judgment entering into force (Article 241 § 2(2))
International agreement (point 9)	only on request	no separate limit (Article 241 § 2(3))
Double taxation dispute resolution procedure (point 10)	ex officio or on request	no separate limit; Article 70d allows implementation despite limitation
Court of Justice of the EU judgment (point 11)	only on request	one month from publication of the operative part in the Official Journal of the EU (Article 241 § 2(2))
Rights of other parties after application of the anti-avoidance rule (point 12)	only on request	one month from service of the ruling under Article 119j § 2 (Article 241 § 2(4))

Reopening is ordered by a ruling that opens proceedings on the grounds for reopening and on the merits (Article 243), conducted by the authority that issued the decision at last instance (Article 244). The authority then sets the previous decision aside in whole or in part and decides on the merits or discontinues the proceedings if it finds a ground; it refuses to set aside where there is no ground, where only a decision of the same content could follow, or where a new decision could no longer be issued because of the periods of Articles 68, 70 or 118, subject to Article 70d (Article 245 § 1); in the last case it declares in its decision that grounds for reopening exist and identifies the circumstances preventing setting aside (Article 245 § 2), which has evidentiary value in a claim for damages. Enforcement is withheld for the duration where the circumstances indicate that setting aside is probable (Article 246). The dispute over the ground of new evidence was settled by the resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of 13 October 2025 (II FPS 3/25): the ground for reopening at the party’s request may be new circumstances or evidence that were known to the party during the proceedings but which the party did not invoke; the evidence must have existed on the date of the decision, been unknown to the authority and be material to the case. The earlier line of judgments under which an authority may not reopen proceedings on the basis of circumstances it already knew is described in our article on the reopening of tax proceedings. The rules on gathering evidence whose breach grounds reopening are described in the entry on evidence in Polish tax proceedings, and the role of CJEU judgments in the article on the binding force of CJEU jurisprudence.

Declaration of nullity

Nullity attaches to decisions affected by the gravest defects listed in Article 247 § 1. In tax practice three are most often invoked: a decision issued without legal basis, in gross violation of the law, and in a case previously decided by another final decision. Gross violation of the law means, in the case law, a breach that is obvious, visible without deeper analysis, and whose consequences cannot be reconciled with the rule of law; an ordinary difference of opinion on interpretation is not one. The ground is not confined to substantive law: a breach of procedural rules may also be gross, but not every one is, and the classification depends on the nature and gravity of the specific defect, not on whether it could have been raised on appeal. Nullity is declared by the higher authority; where the decision was issued by the Head of the National Revenue Administration, the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber or a local government appeals board, by the same authority, and a decision of the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber may also be annulled by the Head of the National Revenue Administration, but only ex officio (Article 248). The matter is decided by a decision subject to appeal. Proceedings are opened on the party’s request or ex officio, but the ex officio route does not escape the time bars: the authority refuses to open proceedings where 5 years have passed since service of the decision, and applies that bar also to opening ex officio (Article 249 § 1(1) and § 2); after the administrative court has dismissed a complaint against the decision, proceedings may be opened only on the ground of a case already decided (Article 249 § 1(2)). The authority also refuses to declare nullity where a new decision could no longer be issued because of limitation, declaring in its decision that the decision contains defects (Article 247 § 2 and 3). Nullity proceedings are not another instance: the authority examines only whether a defect under Article 247 § 1 exists, not the merits of the assessment. A declaration of nullity years later is sometimes the only route for taxpayers against whom a decision was issued to the wrong entity or in a time-barred matter. The authority competent for nullity withholds enforcement where it is probable that the decision suffers from one of the defects (Article 252). The related procedure of revocation and amendment is the subject of our article on the revocation and modification of final tax decisions.

Revocation, amendment and expiry of a final decision

The third procedure serves to correct decisions that are not defective but inexpedient. A final decision under which the party acquired no right may be revoked or amended by the authority that issued it where the public interest or the taxpayer’s important interest so requires (Article 253 § 1); a decision under which the party acquired a right, only with its consent (Article 253a). Decisions assessing or determining a liability, on the liability of withholding agents and collectors, on the liability of third parties, determining default interest, on the liability of heirs and determining the amount of a refund are excluded (Article 253b), so the procedure cannot be used to negotiate a lower tax; it serves reliefs and discretionary decisions. An assessment or determination decision for a given period may be amended by the issuing authority under Article 254 only where, after service, the facts affecting the amount of the liability changed and the consequences of that change are governed by provisions in force on the date of the decision, which mainly concerns local taxes assessed for a year. A request made more than 5 years after service does not open proceedings (Article 256 § 1).

Separately, the issuing authority declares the expiry of a decision that has become devoid of purpose, that was issued subject to a condition the party failed to fulfil, or where the party failed to perform the obligations imposed (Article 258 § 1). A decision deferring the payment of tax or arrears expires by operation of law in full where the deferred deadline is missed; a decision granting instalments expires in respect of the instalment not paid on time, and where the deadlines for three instalments, not necessarily consecutive, are missed, in respect of all unpaid instalments (Article 67da, which replaced the repealed Article 259 from 25 March 2024). The order of proceedings matters: where a complaint is filed with the court after proceedings for the amendment, revocation, nullity or reopening of the decision have been opened, the court proceedings are suspended (Article 56 LPAC), while opening an extraordinary procedure after the complaint has been filed does not stop the court case. The extraordinary procedures are initiated by a letter to the competent authority, free of charge, within the limits described above.

Limitation as the boundary of the extraordinary procedures

Limitation is not a universal bar to setting aside. On appeal and before the court, a decision concerning a liability that expired through limitation is set aside and the proceedings discontinued. The restriction concerns the extraordinary procedures: where a new decision on the merits could no longer be issued because of the periods of Articles 68, 70 or 118, the authority refuses to set the decision aside in reopened proceedings and refuses to declare nullity, confining itself to declaring the defects (Articles 245 § 1(3)(b) and 247 § 2), with one exception: decisions reached in double taxation dispute resolution procedures are implemented despite limitation (Article 70d). For the taxpayer this means that a favourable judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal or the Court of Justice delivered years later does not always allow recovery of tax paid under a final decision: reopening is possible, but setting aside only where a new decision could still be issued. An application for a declaration of overpayment does not circumvent this rule: as long as the final assessment decision remains in force, it binds the authority (Articles 128 and 212), and an overpayment comes into play where the tax was paid on the basis of a return or where the decision has first been removed. Since 1 October 2026 a corrected return filed after the filing deadline replaces the application for a declaration of overpayment and itself opens the proceedings (Articles 75 § 2 and 165 § 8a), and where the overpayment exceeds PLN 10,000 it requires a written statement of reasons (Article 81 § 2b). The counting of periods, including suspension for the duration of court proceedings, is explained in the entry on the statute of limitations for tax obligations and in the article on tolling and interruption.

Damages for an unlawful decision

Liability in damages for a defective decision is governed by the civil law (Article 260), that is by Article 417¹ § 2 of the Civil Code: compensation for damage caused by a final decision may be claimed after its unlawfulness has been established in the proper procedure. The prejudicial finding is the court’s judgment setting the decision aside, a declaration of nullity, setting aside in reopened proceedings, and also a decision refusing to set aside or to declare nullity because of limitation in which the authority declared the existence of defects (Articles 245 § 2 and 247 § 3). The prejudicial finding opens the road but does not decide the outcome: the damage, its amount and the causal link with the decision must be proven separately, and not every setting aside, especially on procedural grounds, leads to compensation. The claim is time-barred under Article 442¹ of the Civil Code, and the period must be established separately in each case: the Supreme Court takes the view that the claim becomes due, and the period starts, only when the prejudicial finding becomes final. The damage is often not only the tax paid but lost profits, enforcement costs and insolvency caused by the execution of a decision later set aside; see the page on state liability.

What to check when choosing the procedure

Whether the decision is final; if not, the appeal is the only route (Article 233), and grounds belonging to the extraordinary procedures may be raised in it.
Whether the 30-day period for a complaint to the court is still running; the complaint allows any defect to be raised, the extraordinary procedures only defects from the catalogue, and a complaint filed after an extraordinary procedure has been opened is suspended (Article 56 LPAC).
The nature of the defect: new evidence, even known to the party, or the party’s non-participation point to reopening (Article 240); lack of legal basis, gross violation, wrong addressee or a case already decided point to nullity (Article 247); changed circumstances to Article 254; loss of purpose to Article 258.
Time limits: one month from learning of the decision in cases of non-participation, one month from a judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal or the Court of Justice, 5 years from service for nullity, also ex officio, and for Articles 253 to 254.
Limitation: whether a new decision could still be issued; if not, the purpose of the extraordinary procedure is a declaration of defects as a prejudicial finding for damages, not setting aside, while the appeal and the complaint remain open.
Whether the court has already dismissed a complaint against the decision; then nullity only on the ground of a case already decided (Article 249 § 1(2)), and reopening only on circumstances not covered by the judgment.
Withholding enforcement for the duration of the extraordinary procedure (Articles 246 and 252) and preserving documents on the damage to secure the claim.

Functional comparison

In Germany a final Steuerbescheid may be amended or revoked in the cases provided in sections 172 to 177 of the Abgabenordnung, including on the basis of new facts or evidence (section 173 AO) and where it was issued subject to review (section 164 AO); a separate institution of nullity for the gravest defects exists in section 125 AO, and the boundary of amendments is the limitation of assessment. In the United States an assessment may be corrected by a refund claim within 3 years of filing the return or 2 years of payment (26 U.S.C. § 6511), and a final court decision binds under res judicata. The Polish catalogue of extraordinary procedures is extensive, but its value is limited by the rule that in those procedures limitation prevents setting aside even a null decision.

Frequently asked questions

Who can set aside a tax decision in Poland?

The appellate authority on appeal (Article 233 Tax Ordinance), the administrative court on a complaint (Article 145 LPAC), the authority conducting reopened proceedings (Article 245) and the authority that issued the decision under Articles 253 to 254. Nullity is declared by the higher authority, and for decisions of the Head of the National Revenue Administration, the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber and a local government appeals board by the same authority (Article 248).

When can tax proceedings be reopened?

Where one of the grounds of Article 240 § 1 exists, among others false evidence, a criminal offence, the party’s non-participation without fault, new circumstances or evidence existing on the date of the decision but unknown to the authority, or a judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal or the Court of Justice of the EU. The evidence need not have been unknown to the party (resolution II FPS 3/25). A request based on non-participation or a tribunal judgment must be filed within one month (Article 241 § 2).

What does gross violation of the law mean?

A breach that is obvious, visible without deeper analysis, whose consequences cannot be reconciled with the rule of law. A dispute over interpretation is not one. A breach of procedural rules may also be gross, but not every one is; the nature and gravity of the defect decide. Gross violation is a ground of nullity under Article 247 § 1(3).

Can a decision be set aside after limitation?

It depends on the procedure. On appeal and before the court, a decision concerning a time-barred liability is set aside. In the extraordinary procedures, where a new decision could no longer be issued because of the periods of Articles 68, 70 or 118, the authority refuses to set aside and refuses to declare nullity, merely declaring that the decision contains defects (Articles 245 § 1(3)(b) and § 2, 247 § 2 and 3), except for decisions in double taxation dispute resolution (Article 70d). That decision is the prejudicial finding for a claim in damages.

How long do I have to request a declaration of nullity?

The authority refuses to open proceedings where the request is filed more than 5 years after service of the decision; the same bar applies to opening ex officio (Article 249 § 1(1) and § 2). After the administrative court has dismissed a complaint against the decision, proceedings may be opened only on the ground of a case already decided (Article 249 § 1(2)).

Are damages available for a defective decision?

Liability exists under the civil law (Article 260 Tax Ordinance and Article 417¹ § 2 of the Civil Code), after the decision’s unlawfulness has been established by the administrative court or in an extraordinary procedure, including a decision refusing to set aside because of limitation but declaring defects. The prejudicial finding does not replace proof of damage and causal link, and the limitation period of the claim must be established separately.

Skarbiec Law Firm conducts tax disputes in every procedure, from the appeal to reopening and nullity, and claims for damages for decisions set aside as unlawful; our tax litigation practice is described on a separate page.

Legal status as of 2 November 2026.iption is to be replaced

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.