Reopening of Tax Proceedings
When Previously Known Circumstances Cannot Justify Resumption of a Final Determination
The reopening of tax proceedings constitutes an extraordinary mechanism for reviewing final administrative determinations—one that Polish fiscal authorities increasingly attempt to deploy instrumentally to reassess taxpayer obligations dating back many years. In a judgment of January 9, 2020, the Provincial Administrative Court in Olsztyn held that reopening tax proceedings pursuant to Article 240 § 1(5) of the Tax Ordinance Act is impermissible where the circumstances allegedly constituting grounds for reopening were already known to the authority when issuing the original decision (case no. I SA/Ol 642/19).
I. The Legal Framework: Reopening of Tax Proceedings Under Polish Law
The reopening of tax proceedings represents one of the extraordinary remedies available under the Tax Ordinance Act for challenging final administrative determinations. Unlike ordinary appeals, which must be filed before a decision attains finality, reopening permits reconsideration of matters already concluded by final decision.
Grounds for Reopening: Article 240 § 1 of the Tax Ordinance
Pursuant to Article 240 § 1 of the Tax Ordinance, reopening of tax proceedings may occur where:
- evidence upon which material factual circumstances were established proves to be falsified;
- the decision was issued as a result of criminal conduct;
- the decision was issued by an official or authority subject to disqualification;
- a party, through no fault of its own, did not participate in the proceedings;
- material new factual circumstances or new evidence existing on the date of decision issuance, unknown to the issuing authority, come to light (paragraph 5);
- the decision was issued without obtaining a legally required position from another authority;
- the decision was based upon another decision or court judgment that was subsequently vacated or modified.
The ground most frequently invoked—and abused—by tax authorities is Article 240 § 1(5): the alleged emergence of “new factual circumstances or new evidence.”
II. Factual Background
Excise Tax Obligations Dating Back Eight Years
The tax authorities challenged the entrepreneur’s February 2011 purchase of 16,000 liters of diesel fuel for his agricultural operation. Investigators determined that the purported seller was a fictitious entity, and that the purchaser had possessed and consumed fuel of unknown origin upon which no excise tax had been paid.
Invoices Issued to Minor Children
A critical element of the case involved invoices for 8,000 liters issued formally to the entrepreneur’s minor children, who were registered as operating “businesses.” In audit protocols dated May 31, 2016, the Head of the Customs Office noted that the entrepreneur was the father and statutory representative of the minors—accordingly, authorizations for the audit were served upon him.
The Original Assessment Decision
In 2016, the Director of the Customs Chamber upheld a decision determining the entrepreneur’s excise tax liability for February 2011 at approximately PLN 14,500 (for 8,000 liters documented by invoices issued in his name).
III. The Invalidity Judgments Regarding Decisions Against the Minors
In judgments of April 20, 2017 (case nos. I SA/Ol 111/17 and I SA/Ol 101/17), the Provincial Administrative Court in Olsztyn declared invalid the decisions issued against the entrepreneur’s minor children.
The court determined that:
“A minor cannot be recognized as a taxpayer for VAT or excise tax purposes, as the fulfillment of obligations arising under these taxes exceeds the scope of activities within the sphere of minor everyday affairs.”
The court directed the authorities, upon reconsideration, to address decisions directly to the entrepreneur as taxpayer, rather than in his capacity as statutory representative of the minor children.
IV. The Reopening and Doubling of the Tax Obligation
The DIAS Decision to Reopen Proceedings
In December 2018—nearly eight years after the period to which the obligation related—the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber reopened the tax proceedings concluded by final decision against the entrepreneur.
The purported ground for reopening was Article 240 § 1(5) of the Tax Ordinance—”new factual circumstances” allegedly consisting of the judgments declaring invalid the decisions against the minors.
Expansion of the Tax Base
The authority:
- attributed to the entrepreneur the invoices previously issued to his minor children;
- expanded the scope of taxation to include an additional 8,000 liters of fuel;
- doubled the obligation—from approximately PLN 14,500 to approximately PLN 29,000.
Refusal to Conduct Requested Evidentiary Proceedings
The taxpayer’s counsel moved for examination of the entrepreneur, the fuel supplier, and a witness present at delivery—to establish that excise tax had been paid at an earlier stage of commerce. The DIAS refused to conduct the requested evidence merely eight days after the motion was filed, determining that it “would contribute nothing to the case” and that “the correctness of the findings had already been confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court.”
V. The Provincial Administrative Court’s Determination
Absence of Grounds for Reopening Tax Proceedings
The Provincial Administrative Court in Olsztyn vacated the challenged decision together with the preceding first-instance decision, holding that the prerequisites for reopening tax proceedings under Article 240 § 1(5) of the Tax Ordinance had not been satisfied.
The Court’s Central Reasoning
The court explained that, for reopening of tax proceedings to be permissible under Article 240 § 1(5), there must exist new factual circumstances—that is, circumstances which:
- had they been known to the authority when issuing the decision concluding the proceedings, would have affected its outcome;
- materially modify the factual situation as established by the authority;
- were unknown to the authority on the date of decision issuance.
Circumstances Known to the Authority From the Outset
The court emphasized that all factual circumstances were known to the authority at the time of the original decision:
“The tax authorities erroneously assessed that invoices formally issued to the complainant’s minor children pertained to them rather than to the complainant. It was the complainant who operated the agricultural holding. Fuel purchases were connected with operating the agricultural holding. This circumstance was known from the beginning. The content of the judgments in no way alters this circumstance.”
Court Judgments Do Not Constitute “New Factual Circumstances”
The court clarified that judgments declaring invalid the decisions against the minors do not themselves constitute factual circumstances or evidence within the meaning of Article 240 § 1(5):
“The prerequisite under Article 240 § 1(5) of the Tax Ordinance—requiring the emergence of material new factual circumstances or new evidence existing on the date of decision issuance unknown to the authority—has not been satisfied.”
VI. The Proper Procedural Avenue: Ordinary Proceedings, Not Reopening
The court identified a fundamental procedural error committed by the authorities. Given that invalidity of the decisions against the minors was declared pursuant to Article 247 § 1(5) of the Tax Ordinance (decision addressed to a person who was not a party), initiation of proceedings against the proper party (the entrepreneur) could occur exclusively through ordinary proceedings—not via reopening of tax proceedings.
Reopening of tax proceedings cannot serve as a mechanism for remedying the authority’s errors in legal assessment of a factual situation that was known to it from the outset.
VII. Practical Significance for Taxpayers
Boundaries of Reopening Tax Proceedings
The Olsztyn court’s judgment establishes significant limitations on the institution of reopening tax proceedings:
- New circumstances comprise only those objectively unknown to the authority—not those which the authority erroneously assessed or disregarded.
- Court judgments declaring invalid other decisions do not automatically constitute grounds for reopening tax proceedings against a different person.
- Erroneous legal assessment of a known factual situation cannot be remedied through reopening—the authority should have properly assessed the matter upon initial consideration.
- Ordinary proceedings versus reopening—where a decision was addressed to an improper person, proceedings against the proper party are initiated through ordinary procedures.
Protection Against Instrumental Deployment of Reopening
This judgment constitutes an important precedent protecting taxpayers against the practice of instrumentally deploying reopening of tax proceedings to:
- circumvent limitation periods for tax obligations;
- “reassess” obligations dating back many years;
- remedy the authority’s own decisional errors at taxpayers’ expense.
VIII. Defensive Strategies Against Unwarranted Reopening
In disputes concerning reopening of tax proceedings, critical considerations include:
- analysis of the reopening grounds—whether the invoked “new circumstances” were genuinely unknown to the authority;
- verification of the original proceeding files—documents frequently confirm that the authority possessed complete knowledge;
- raising the objection of absent prerequisites for reopening tax proceedings at the administrative appeal stage;
- challenging the decision before the administrative court.
Effective defense requires specialized knowledge of tax procedure and substantial experience in tax litigation.
IX. Conclusion
The Provincial Administrative Court in Olsztyn’s judgment (I SA/Ol 642/19) constitutes a significant ruling constraining the possibility of instrumental deployment of reopening tax proceedings by fiscal authorities. The court definitively determined that:
- reopening of tax proceedings requires genuinely new factual circumstances;
- circumstances known to the authority from the outset cannot constitute grounds for reopening;
- erroneous legal assessment of a known factual situation does not justify reopening of proceedings.
Taxpayers against whom authorities attempt to reopen proceedings based upon allegedly “new” circumstances should meticulously analyze whether the prerequisites of Article 240 § 1(5) of the Tax Ordinance have been genuinely satisfied.
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.
