Obstructing Tax Audits – The Inspector at the Door
When tax authorities arrive to conduct an audit, the entrepreneur confronts a peculiar species of visitor—one who holds a key to premises they do not own and whose questions carry the weight of law. The impulse to resist, to delay, to make things difficult, is understandable. It is also, under Polish law, potentially criminal.
Article 83 of the Fiscal Penal Code penalizes obstruction of tax audits, customs inspections, and related official proceedings. The maximum penalty—a fine of up to 720 daily rates, which at current levels can exceed thirty-eight million złoty—suggests that the legislature takes a dim view of those who impede the state’s efforts to examine their affairs.
The Vocabulary of Obstruction
The statute distinguishes between two forms of interference, differing in degree rather than kind.
“Frustration” renders an official act impossible. The inspector cannot perform the task at all—the door remains locked, the records have vanished, the computer system has become mysteriously inaccessible.
“Obstruction” creates difficulties without complete prevention. The audit proceeds, but haltingly, impeded by delays, missing documents, uncooperative personnel, systems that malfunction at inopportune moments.
Both are criminal. The difference lies in severity, not legality.
What the Law Prohibits
The statute enumerates specific forbidden acts—refusing to produce books or documents upon demand, destroying records, damaging them, rendering them useless, hiding them, removing them from the premises. But the list is explicitly non-exhaustive. Any conduct that meaningfully impedes an authorized inspection falls within the prohibition.
In the digital age, “rendering useless” extends to electronic records. Corrupting a database, encrypting files without providing access, accidentally formatting a hard drive at a suspiciously convenient moment—all may constitute obstruction.
The documents protected are those relevant to the audit’s subject matter, not every paper the inspector might wish to examine. An overly broad demand—for records unrelated to the matters under review—may be resisted without criminal consequence. But the line is not always clear, and the safer course is usually to comply first and contest later.
What the Law Permits
Not every inhospitable act constitutes a crime. Courts and commentators have been careful to distinguish obstruction from mere discourtesy.
Treating inspectors rudely does not violate the statute. Providing them with a work space that is cramped, poorly lit, inadequately heated, or otherwise uncomfortable is not criminal—merely ungracious. Failing to offer coffee, responding tersely to questions, displaying visible resentment at the intrusion: all of these may make the audit unpleasant, but none makes it illegal.
The distinction lies in whether conduct creates a genuine obstacle to the inspectors’ ability to obtain the information they seek. Incivility is not obstruction; concealment is.
The Requirement of Intent
Obstruction is a crime of intent. The perpetrator must know—or at least accept the possibility—that they are dealing with an authorized inspection and that their conduct impedes it.
In practice, willful blindness is rarely available as a defense. Inspectors are required to present credentials and authorizations. The taxpayer who claims ignorance of what was plainly communicated will find courts unreceptive.
But genuine impossibility is another matter. A document that has been lost through no fault of the taxpayer, a computer system that crashed before the inspection was announced, records destroyed by fire or flood—these misfortunes may impede an audit but do not constitute crimes. The law requires culpability, not merely causation.
The Expanding Powers of the Tax Authorities
Polish tax authorities have, over recent years, acquired investigative powers that would once have been the exclusive province of intelligence services. Some of these capabilities—electronic surveillance, access to banking records, authority to compel testimony—exist in tension with constitutional protections for privacy and economic freedom.
This expansion has consequences for the obstruction offense. As the scope of authorized inspection grows, so too does the universe of conduct that can be characterized as impeding it. An action that would have been entirely lawful a decade ago—declining to provide certain records, refusing access to certain systems—may now constitute criminal obstruction.
For entrepreneurs, this evolution counsels caution. The boundaries of permissible resistance have contracted, and the penalties for misjudging them have not.
The Physical Dimension
Although the statute focuses on documents and records, obstruction can also be directed at the inspectors themselves. Physically preventing entry to premises, threatening officials, engaging in intimidation—these constitute obstruction in its most direct form, and may additionally trigger charges under the general criminal code.
The combination can be formidable. An entrepreneur who bars the door to tax inspectors may face not only fiscal penalties but prosecution for interfering with public officials in the performance of their duties.
Minor Cases
Since 2005, the statute has recognized a “minor case” variant, reducing the offense to a fiscal misdemeanor with correspondingly lighter penalties. The classification depends on circumstances—what the taxpayer was attempting to hide, the degree of impediment created, the overall context of the conduct.
No hierarchy exists among the various types of inspections. Obstructing a routine verification is not inherently less serious than obstructing a full customs audit. What matters is the nature and purpose of the obstructive conduct, not the bureaucratic category of the proceeding impeded.
The Wisdom of Compliance
The practical lesson is straightforward, if unwelcome: when tax authorities arrive, cooperation is not merely advisable but legally compelled. Resistance through action—hiding documents, blocking access, destroying records—exposes the entrepreneur to criminal liability that may far exceed whatever the audit itself might have discovered.
This does not mean taxpayers are without rights. Inspectors must operate within legal bounds; demands that exceed their authority may be challenged; procedural violations may be raised in subsequent proceedings. But the proper forum for such challenges is administrative and judicial review, not physical or documentary obstruction.
The entrepreneur who believes an inspection is unlawful has remedies. Refusing to comply is not among them.
Skarbiec Law Firm represents entrepreneurs in tax proceedings and fiscal criminal cases, providing protection of rights while minimizing the risk of criminal liability.
Current as of December 2025
Founder and Managing Partner of Skarbiec Law Firm, recognized by Dziennik Gazeta Prawna as one of the best tax advisory firms in Poland (2023, 2024). Legal advisor with 19 years of experience, serving Forbes-listed entrepreneurs and innovative start-ups. One of the most frequently quoted experts on commercial and tax law in the Polish media, regularly publishing in Rzeczpospolita, Gazeta Wyborcza, and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Author of the publication “AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto. Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator” and co-author of the award-winning book “Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy” (Security of a Modern Company). LinkedIn profile: 18 500 followers, 4 million views per year. Awards: 4-time winner of the European Medal, Golden Statuette of the Polish Business Leader, title of “International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.” He specializes in strategic legal consulting, tax planning, and crisis management for business.
