Tax Fraud in Poland

Tax fraud (Polish: oszustwo podatkowe) is the intentional misleading of a tax authority as to the facts on which the amount of a tax depends. The offender states an untruth or conceals the truth in a tax return, a declaration, a book of account or an invoice. As a result the tax is exposed to a shortfall, or the authority is exposed to an undue refund.

Polish law contains no single provision defining tax fraud. The term covers a group of offences under the Act of 10 September 1999, the Fiscal Penal Code (Kodeks karny skarbowy, hereinafter “FPC”). The most important are Article 54 (evasion by non-disclosure), Article 56 (false statements in a return), Article 62 § 2 (unreliable invoices) and Article 76 (refund fraud). Since 1 March 2017 they have been joined by the invoice offences of Articles 270a, 271a and 277a of the Act of 6 June 1997, the Criminal Code (Kodeks karny, hereinafter “CC”).

Each provision has its own elements. Articles 54, 56 and 76 FPC require that the tax be exposed to a shortfall or the authority to an undue refund. Article 62 § 2 FPC and the CC invoice offences punish the mere issuing or use of an unreliable invoice, even if the budget loses nothing.

Two lines organise the subject. What separates fraud from an ordinary error is intent. What separates it from tax avoidance is that the offender does not exploit a gap in the statute but falsifies the facts. In international usage the concept corresponds to tax fraud and, more broadly, tax evasion, to the German Steuerhinterziehung and to the French fraude fiscale. Two terms of translation: in this entry “fiscal offence” means a przestępstwo skarbowe, as distinct from a fiscal misdemeanour (wykroczenie skarbowe), and “felony” means a zbrodnia, a crime whose statutory minimum is at least 3 years of imprisonment.

Key points

• Three concepts, three regimes. Tax evasion is a fiscal offence. Tax avoidance is lawful in form but artificial. The authority disregards its effects under the general anti-avoidance rule of Article 119a of the Act of 29 August 1997, the Tax Ordinance (Ordynacja podatkowa), and a GAAR decision does not of itself create criminal liability. Tax optimisation, the choice of the most favourable among the routes the law allows, is the taxpayer’s right.
• Tax fraud requires intent (Article 4 § 1 and 2 FPC). The offender either wants to state an untruth or foresees doing so and accepts it. Negligence suffices in VAT to deny the right of deduction (“should have known”), but not for a conviction.
• The result of the offences in Articles 54, 56 and 76 FPC is exposure of the tax to a shortfall (Article 53 § 28 FPC), not an actual shortfall. The offence is complete when the false return is filed, even if the budget loses nothing. An unreliable invoice (Article 62 § 2 FPC, Article 271a CC) is punishable even without that result.
• The penalty under the FPC is a fine of up to 720 daily rates, imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. Where the shortfall is of great value, imprisonment reaches 10 years (Article 38 § 2 in conjunction with Article 28 § 2 FPC). In 2026 one daily rate ranges from PLN 160.20 to PLN 64,080.
• Classification turns on amounts expressed as multiples of the minimum wage, PLN 4,806 in 2026. An act under Article 54, 56 or 76 FPC up to PLN 24,030 is a fiscal misdemeanour. Up to PLN 961,200 it is of small value, above PLN 2,403,000 of large value and above PLN 4,806,000 of great value (Article 53 § 3, 14, 15 and 16 FPC). For an unreliable invoice under Article 62 § 2 FPC what counts is the tax shown on the invoice, not the tax exposed to a shortfall.
• An invoice certifying an untruth with a total amount due above PLN 200,000 is an offence under Article 271a § 1 CC (6 months to 8 years). Above PLN 5,000,000 it is a felony under Article 271a § 2 CC (3 to 20 years), and above PLN 10,000,000 a felony under Article 277a CC (5 to 25 years). The same act is prosecuted in parallel under Article 62 § 2 FPC (Article 8 § 1 FPC).
• Active remorse (czynny żal, voluntary disclosure under Article 16 FPC) exempts the offender from penalty as long as the authority has no documented knowledge of the act and has not begun an audit. A legally effective correction of the return with payment of the arrears (Article 16a FPC) protects until proceedings concerning that act are opened. The correction covers only returns and books, not invoices.

Fraud, avoidance, optimisation: where the line runs

Disputes about tax fraud usually begin with the confusion of three concepts. The law treats each of them differently.

Tax evasion (uchylanie się od opodatkowania) is unlawful conduct. Examples: concealing revenue, falsifying books, issuing an invoice for a service never rendered, registering a business in someone else’s name. This is the domain of the Fiscal Penal Code and, for invoices, of the Criminal Code. In Polish doctrine the term “tax fraud” most often denotes the offence of Article 56 FPC: the taxpayer files a return, but a false one. Article 54 FPC covers the more extreme case where the object of taxation is not disclosed at all. In everyday and international usage the concept embraces both.

Tax avoidance (unikanie opodatkowania) stays within the letter of the law but not its purpose. It denotes an arrangement whose main purpose, or one of whose main purposes, is a tax benefit that contradicts the object or purpose of the tax statute, achieved in an artificial manner (Article 119a § 1 of the Tax Ordinance). Artificiality is tested through the eyes of a reasonable actor: whether someone pursuing lawful, non-tax objectives would have chosen the same route (Article 119c). The GAAR has applied since 15 July 2016, in its current form since 1 January 2019.

The consequence of the rule is fiscal, not criminal. The benefit is disregarded and the tax assessed as if the appropriate transaction had been carried out. An additional tax liability follows under Articles 58a to 58e of the Tax Ordinance: in personal and corporate income tax 10 percent of the sum of the understated income and overstated loss, in other taxes 40 percent of the tax benefit. The rate doubles, among other cases, on the part of the base above PLN 15 million and triples where the grounds coincide (Articles 58b and 58c).

None of this is a crime. The FPC contains no provision penalising artificiality. A return that reflects transactions actually carried out states no untruth within the meaning of Article 56 FPC. Liability begins only where facts are falsified, for instance by backdating documents or staging an economic substance that does not exist. Alongside the general rule there are targeted rules, for example the anti-abuse clause attached to the dividend exemption.

Tax optimisation (optymalizacja podatkowa), also called tax planning, is a choice among the routes the legislature itself provides. Legal form, timing of a transaction, relief, exemption, country of residence: all of these are permitted choices. The Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) has repeated for years that a taxpayer is under no duty to maximise the tax and may choose the form of a transaction that produces the lowest burden. The limit is artificiality.

Three courts confirm that line. In the first final judgment on the GAAR the court upheld the refusal of a protective opinion for an arrangement found to be artificial (judgment of 8 July 2019, II FSK 135/19). The Constitutional Tribunal struck down Poland’s first statutory anti-avoidance clause, the former Article 24b § 1 of the Tax Ordinance, as too indeterminate (judgment of 11 May 2004, K 4/03). The Court of Justice of the European Union, in cases on the Treaty freedoms, allows Member States to challenge only wholly artificial arrangements devoid of economic substance (judgment of 12 September 2006, C-196/04, Cadbury Schweppes). In VAT it applies a separate abuse test (judgment of 21 February 2006, C-255/02, Halifax).

The line also has a temporal dimension. The GAAR covers tax benefits obtained from 15 July 2016 onwards (Article 7 of the Act of 13 May 2016 amending the Tax Ordinance). What matters is the moment the benefit is obtained, not the date of the transaction. A structure set up before 2016 that still produces a benefit falls under the rule for later periods (judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22 August 2023, III FSK 354/23 and following). Benefits obtained earlier stay outside its reach.

That line exposes a frequent error of the authorities. An authority that reclassifies old optimisation as a fiscal offence only to suspend the limitation period acts instrumentally. Administrative courts have reviewed such conduct since the resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 May 2021 (I FPS 1/21). The judgment of seven judges of 14 April 2025 (I FSK 1078/24) added that the discontinuance of fiscal penal proceedings for want of the elements of an offence may undo the suspension.

From practice: the question “is this still optimisation or already avoidance” is best asked before the authority asks it. The answer comes from assessing whether the GAAR applies to a transaction and, for structures already in operation, from a written tax opinion that names the weak points before an audit report does. The rule itself and the procedure for applying it are described in the entry on tax avoidance and the GAAR clause in Poland.

Elements of tax fraud under the Fiscal Penal Code

Intent of the offender

A fiscal offence can be committed only intentionally unless the Code expressly provides for negligence (Article 4 § 1 FPC). None of the tax fraud provisions does. Intent takes two forms. Direct intent: the offender wants to state an untruth. Conditional intent (dolus eventualis): the offender foresees that the statement may be untrue and accepts it (Article 4 § 2 FPC). Article 55 FPC additionally requires the purpose of concealing a business or its scale, so direct intent only.

This produces a division that the authorities often blur. In tax proceedings a purchaser loses the right to deduct VAT as soon as it “knew or should have known” that the transaction was connected with fraud. This has been the position of the Court of Justice since its judgment of 6 July 2006 in Kittel and Recolta (C-439/04 and C-440/04). In fiscal penal proceedings “should have known” means negligence. Negligence does not satisfy the elements of fraud.

In practice it works like this. A failure of due diligence costs the tax but provides no basis for a conviction. That failure is nonetheless used as circumstantial evidence of conditional intent, and this is what most fiscal penal trials are about. The defence of such a case therefore starts by separating the two regimes: what the authority has on intent, and what it has only on carelessness. How the authorities build evidence out of associations is described in Guilt by Association: How a Tax System Defines Complicity, and the standard of diligence in the entry on the good faith doctrine in VAT law.

The offender need not be the taxpayer. Liable as a perpetrator is also anyone who manages the economic affairs, in particular the financial affairs, of another entity (Article 9 § 3 FPC). The basis may be a provision of law, a decision of a competent authority, a contract or actual performance. That reaches a management board member, a chief financial officer, a chief accountant and, depending on the findings, an external adviser. When an employee’s fraud becomes the company’s tax bill is discussed in Your Employee’s Fraud, Your Tax Bill.

Exposure of the tax to a shortfall as the result of fraud

The offences of Articles 54, 56 and 76 FPC are offences of endangerment. A shortfall (uszczuplenie) is the sum that the person obliged failed to pay or to declare, where the loss to the public purse actually occurred (Article 53 § 27 FPC). Exposure to a shortfall (narażenie na uszczuplenie) is the creation of a concrete danger of such a loss: highly probable, though not inevitable (Article 53 § 28 FPC).

The offence of Article 56 FPC is therefore complete when the false return is filed, provided its content creates such a danger. Later payment of the tax affects the sentence and the availability of active remorse, not the existence of the offence.

An unreliable invoice is different. Article 62 § 2 FPC and Article 271a CC are formal offences. They are complete when the document is issued or used, whether or not anyone reduced a tax with it.

Types of tax fraud and sanctions

The table shows the basic and aggravated types. Each CC provision also has a case of lesser gravity. Alongside imprisonment the court may impose a fine of up to 3,000 daily rates (Article 277b CC).

Articles 54, 56 and 76 FPC have a privileged type for small value (a fine of up to 720 daily rates only). Where the amount does not exceed the statutory threshold, they become fiscal misdemeanours. Article 62 § 2a FPC works differently: where the tax shown on the invoice or invoices does not exceed small value, imprisonment remains, and only a case of lesser gravity is a misdemeanour (Article 62 § 5 FPC).

Alongside fraud in the strict sense stand the acts that prepare the ground: failing to keep books (Article 60 FPC), keeping them unreliably (Article 61 FPC) and obstructing an audit (Article 83 FPC). They are discussed in Unreliable Books: The Lies That Ledgers Tell and Obstructing Tax Audits: The Inspector at the Door. The individual charges are described on the pages on tax evasion under Article 54 FPC, false returns under Article 56 FPC, invoice fraud under Article 62 FPC and Article 271a CC and undue refunds under Article 76 FPC.

Threshold amounts for tax fraud in 2026

The thresholds in the FPC are expressed as multiples of the minimum wage in force at the time of the act. At PLN 4,806 in 2026 they are as follows.

A shortfall of large value triggers extraordinary aggravation of the penalty (Article 37 § 1 point 1 FPC). So do tax of large value on unreliable invoices (point 1a), a regular source of income from fiscal offences (point 2) and acting in an organised group (point 5). For great value the court imposes imprisonment above the statutory minimum and up to twice the statutory maximum (Article 38 § 2 FPC). An aggravated penalty may not exceed 1,080 daily rates of a fine or 10 years of imprisonment (Article 28 § 2 FPC). The maximum fine in 2026 is therefore PLN 46,137,600, or PLN 69,206,400 after aggravation.

From 1 January 2027 the minimum wage rises to PLN 4,950 (regulation of 14 September 2026). The misdemeanour ceiling becomes PLN 24,750, small value PLN 990,000, large value PLN 2,475,000, great value PLN 4,950,000 and the daily rate PLN 165 to PLN 66,000. For any given act, however, the minimum wage at the time of its commission applies.

For invoices under the Criminal Code the thresholds are fixed amounts: PLN 200,000 (property of significant value), PLN 5,000,000 and PLN 10,000,000. What is added up is the total amount due on the invoices covered by one charge, not the tax alone. That difference of bases is often the first point of dispute with the prosecutor.

Liability for tax fraud: who and for what

Concurrence of the Fiscal Penal Code and the Criminal Code

A single act of tax fraud may satisfy the elements of both a fiscal offence and a common offence. Each provision then applies (ideal concurrence, Article 8 § 1 FPC). Only the most severe penalty is executed. A fine imposed alongside it is executed as well, and so are the penal measures ordered under both provisions (Article 8 § 2 and 3 FPC).

The Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), sitting as a panel of seven judges, held in its resolution of 24 January 2013 (I KZP 19/12) that the rules excluding multiple assessment do not apply to ideal concurrence. The issuer of an unreliable invoice may therefore answer in parallel under Article 62 § 2 FPC and under Article 271a CC, provided the act satisfies the elements of both. An earlier resolution of 30 September 2003 (I KZP 22/03) had treated Article 62 § 2 FPC as lex specialis to the intellectual forgery of Article 271 CC. Since 1 March 2017 the CC counterparts are Articles 270a, 271a and 277a, discussed in Invoice Fraud: The Paper Trail to Prison.

Common fraud under Article 286 CC does not cover understating the tax in a return. The authority disposes of nothing, because the tax was computed by the taxpayer (decision of the Supreme Court of 24 June 2015, I KZP 2/15). Refund fraud is different: the authority pays money out, so the act may satisfy at once the elements of Article 76 FPC and Article 286 CC. This concerns above all entities that were taxpayers on paper only. The proceeds of tax fraud are also an object of money laundering. Subsequent transfers and purchases may therefore give rise to a charge under Article 299 CC.

Liability of the company, its board and third parties

The entity on whose behalf the offender managed its affairs as an attorney, administrator or employee is subsidiarily liable for the fine imposed on the offender. The condition is that the entity obtained or could have obtained a financial benefit from the act (Article 24 § 1 FPC). The collective entity itself may be held liable under the Act of 28 October 2002 on the Liability of Collective Entities, which extends to fiscal offences.

Then come the asset instruments. Forfeiture of objects and proceeds (Articles 29 to 33 FPC) includes, where the benefit is of large value, a presumption that property acquired in the 5 years before the act derives from crime (Article 33 § 2 FPC). The freezing of assets operates as early as the pre-trial stage (Article 131 FPC). Extended confiscation under Article 45 § 2 CC rests on an analogous, rebuttable presumption, and forfeiture of the enterprise on the conditions of Article 44a CC.

The mechanism and limits of these instruments are described in the entry on extended confiscation, the practice of seizing company money before any judgment in Seizure of Company Assets Without a Court Judgment, and the liability of directors for the company’s taxes in Personal Liability of Corporate Directors for Tax Obligations.

The tax consequences that run in parallel

Fiscal penal proceedings do not replace tax proceedings. The two run side by side, and the criminal court decides questions of fact and law on its own (Article 8 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conjunction with Article 113 § 1 FPC). On the tax side, the discovery of fraud may set in motion, each on its own conditions:

• a decision determining the arrears together with default interest;
• the issuer’s obligation to pay the VAT shown on an empty invoice (Article 108(1) of the Act of 11 March 2004 on Value Added Tax, hereinafter “VAT Act”) and the denial of deduction to the purchaser (Article 88(3a) of that Act), discussed in the entry on empty invoices;
• an additional VAT liability: up to 30 percent (Article 112b), reduced to 20 and 15 percent where the taxpayer corrects after an audit, or 100 percent of the input tax on fictitious invoices where the irregularity resulted from deliberate action of the taxpayer or of a counterparty of which the taxpayer was aware (Article 112c); the sanction is not imposed on a natural person who answers for the same act under fiscal penal law (Article 112b(3) point 3; judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 4 September 2007, P 43/06);
• a 72-hour block of the bank account, extendable to 3 months (Section IIIB of the Tax Ordinance, the STIR system), described in When the State Freezes Your Money, and removal from the VAT register (Article 96(9) and (9a) VAT Act);
• joint and several liability of the purchaser for the supplier’s arrears in sensitive goods (Article 105a VAT Act), discussed in Joint and Several VAT Liability of the Purchaser, and the liability of board members for the company’s arrears (Article 116 of the Tax Ordinance), described in Third-Party Tax Liability in Poland;
• suspension of the limitation period for the tax liability by the opening of fiscal penal proceedings of which the taxpayer has been notified (Article 70 § 6 point 1 of the Tax Ordinance), subject to review for instrumentality; see the entries on the statute of limitations for tax obligations and on tolling and interruption of the limitation period.

A practical rule follows. The criminal defence is run together with the dispute with the tax authority, because an assessment decision set aside takes the ground from under the charge.

Types of tax fraud

VAT fraud

VAT is the most frequent object of tax fraud. The reason is simple: its design provides for payments out of the budget, namely the refund of the excess of input tax over output tax. Three mechanisms recur.

The first is empty invoices, documents without a transaction. They are used to claim a cost and input tax the purchaser is not entitled to. The difference between issuing and buying them is discussed in The Purchase of Fictitious Invoices.

The second is chain trading with a missing trader. Such a trader charges VAT, collects it from the purchaser and vanishes before the payment date, while the last link in the chain claims a refund. A business that ended up in such a chain without its knowledge is in a different position from the organiser; that difference has to be demonstrated to the authority, as described on the page on VAT carousel allegations. A refund withheld because of a counterparty’s conduct is a separate battle, described in How to Claim a VAT Refund in Poland.

The third is a refund claimed by an entity that exists only in the register (Article 76 FPC). A separate problem was settled by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 30 January 2024 in the Polish case C-442/22. Where an employee issues false invoices with the employer’s data without its knowledge and consent, the tax on those invoices falls on the employee. The exception: the employer failed to exercise the due diligence reasonably required to monitor the employee’s conduct. In practice it is therefore the employer that must demonstrate supervision, as described in When the Employee, Not the Company, Pays for Fictitious Invoices.

The scale of the phenomenon is illustrated by the VAT gap. It also covers insolvencies and errors, not fraud alone. According to the European Commission’s report of 11 December 2025, the compliance gap in the Union was about EUR 128 billion for 2023, or 9.5 percent of the VAT due. In Poland it was about PLN 47 billion, the third-largest in the Union.

The response consists of analytical tools. In the Union: the VIES system, the Eurofisc network with transaction network analysis (TNA) since 2019 and the central electronic system of payment information (CESOP) since 2024. In Poland: the standard audit file (JPK), STIR and the National e-Invoicing System (KSeF). KSeF is mandatory from 1 February 2026 for the largest taxpayers and from 1 April 2026 for the rest, with the final stage and sanctions from 1 January 2027. As a rule it gives the authorities every invoice in real time.

Prosecution has changed scale as well. VAT fraud against the Union budget worth at least EUR 10 million and connected with at least two Member States falls within the competence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (Directive (EU) 2017/1371), in which Poland has participated since 2024. The time limits for prosecuting VAT fraud under Union law were addressed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 15 October 2026, C-321/25, Gidzhinov, discussed in Fifteen Years Is Enough. Europe’s Top Court on VAT Fraud, Slow Judges and Why Running a Criminal Group May Cost More Than the Crime.

Income tax fraud

In personal and corporate income tax, fraud takes a few typical forms: concealed revenue, costs inflated with invoices from non-existent entities, trading under another person’s name (fronting, Article 55 FPC). To these add a feigned tax residence or a foreign seat of a company that is in fact managed from Poland; on that line see The Foreign Company Managed from Poland: Corporate Residence, Social Security and the Limits of Paper Structures.

Income whose coverage in disclosed sources the taxpayer cannot demonstrate is taxed at 75 percent (Article 25e of the Act of 26 July 1991 on Personal Income Tax). This is discussed in the entry on undisclosed sources of income. Excise (Article 63 et seq. FPC) and customs (Article 85 et seq.) have their own types of offence built on exposure of the duty to a shortfall. The gambling offences (Article 107 et seq. FPC) protect the licensing regime and require no result for any tax.

Cross-border fraud

The largest tax fraud of recent decades is Cum-Ex. It consisted in obtaining multiple refunds of a single, once-paid withholding tax on dividends. The tool was share transactions around the dividend record date. The CumEx Files journalistic investigation estimated in 2018 the losses of European treasuries at no less than EUR 55 billion, around EUR 32 billion of it in Germany. Its 2021 update puts the global figure at around EUR 150 billion for all dividend-stripping schemes, including cum-cum. The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) held in its judgment of 28 July 2021 (1 StR 519/20) that these transactions were tax evasion, not the use of a loophole.

The second field is accounts and companies in low-tax jurisdictions, described on the page on tax havens. That field is shrinking. Since 2017 the automatic exchange of information under the CRS has operated. From 2026 crypto-assets are reported under Directive DAC8, with the first exchange of data for 2026 in 2027, as discussed in CARF/DAC8 Compliance: The End of Crypto-Asset Opacity. The global minimum tax (in Poland the Act of 6 November 2024 on Top-Up Taxation, applied since 1 January 2025) belongs to the instruments against avoidance, not against fraud, though the two are often confused.

How to avoid a penalty for tax fraud: active remorse, correction, voluntary submission

Active remorse (czynny żal, Article 16 FPC) exempts from penalty an offender who has notified the authority of the act, disclosed its material circumstances, including the persons who took part, and paid the amount due within the time set. It has a deadline that no calendar shows. The notification is ineffective once the authority already had clearly documented knowledge of the act or had begun an official action: a search, a verification activity, a tax audit or a customs and fiscal audit, unless that action did not provide grounds for opening proceedings (Article 16 § 5 FPC).

Active remorse is not available to everyone. It is excluded for anyone who directed the commission of the act, ordered it from a dependent person, or induced another person to commit it in order to turn proceedings against that person. It is also excluded for the organiser or leader of a group, unless the notification was made together with all its members (Article 16 § 6 FPC). Two things are therefore worth establishing before filing: whether the authority already knows something, and who in the company will sign the document. Details in the entries on active remorse and on the ineffectiveness of voluntary disclosure.

A simpler route is Article 16a FPC. Whoever, after committing an act concerning a return or a book, files a legally effective correction and pays the depleted amount without delay is not liable to a penalty. The condition: no pre-trial proceedings concerning that act were opened earlier and the act did not come to light in the course of other proceedings. The correction therefore protects only those who get there before the authority, and only as regards the return or the book. It does not cover the issuing of an unreliable invoice or an offence under the CC; there, active remorse remains.

Voluntary submission to liability (Articles 17 and 18 FPC) ends the case without a trial and without an entry in the National Criminal Register (Article 18 § 2 FPC). It is inadmissible where the act is punishable by restriction or deprivation of liberty, where an act punishable by a fine only was committed under the conditions of extraordinary aggravation, and where an intervention has been lodged concerning an object subject to forfeiture (Article 17 § 2 FPC). For tax fraud it is therefore available only in the privileged small-value types and for fiscal misdemeanours.

For invoice offences the Criminal Code has its own mechanisms. An offender under Article 270a § 1 or 2 or Article 271a § 1 or 2 who notified the law enforcement authority and disclosed the circumstances and the accomplices before the authority knew of them is assured extraordinary mitigation. After the return of the benefit the court may waive the penalty. For the felony of Article 277a § 1 CC only discretionary mitigation is available, not a waiver (Articles 277c and 277d CC).

Limitation periods depend on the classification of the act. The punishability of a fiscal offence ceases after 5 years, or after 10 years where the act is punishable by imprisonment exceeding 3 years (Article 44 § 1 FPC). For acts consisting in a shortfall or exposure to a shortfall the period runs from the end of the year in which the tax payment deadline expired, and punishability also ceases when the tax liability itself becomes time-barred (Article 44 § 2 and 3 FPC). Opening proceedings against the offender extends the period by a further 5 or 10 years (Article 44 § 5 FPC).

The invoice offences of the CC become time-barred under Articles 101 and 102 CC: the offence of Article 271a § 1 after 15 years, the felonies of Article 271a § 2 and Article 277a § 1 after 20 years, in each case extended by 10 years once proceedings against the person are opened.

Finally, the state of legislation. The statute passed by the Sejm on 15 May 2026, which was to repeal Article 44 § 2 FPC together with the suspension under Article 70 § 6 point 1 of the Tax Ordinance, was vetoed on 11 June 2026 and did not enter into force.

What to check when a tax fraud charge appears

This list is where the analysis of every charge begins, in our practice as well.

• The classification and the amount. Whether the authority has correctly added up the tax exposed to a shortfall, the tax shown on the invoices or the amounts due on them. This decides whether the act is a misdemeanour, whether it is of small value, whether aggravation is in play and whether voluntary submission to liability is available.
• Intent. Which pieces of evidence point to the offender’s knowledge and which only to a lack of diligence. Separating the tax regime (“should have known”) from the criminal one (conditional intent) is the principal line of defence.
• Who the perpetrator is. The actual division of duties in the company, powers of attorney, the contract with the accounting firm and internal rules determine the application of Article 9 § 3 FPC.
• The window for active remorse and correction. Whether the authority already has documented knowledge of the act and whether an audit has begun. After notification of the opening of proceedings it is too late.
• Time limits. The limitation period for punishability (Article 44 FPC, Article 101 CC), the limitation period for the tax liability and the instrumentality of the opening of proceedings (Article 70 § 6 point 1 of the Tax Ordinance, resolution I FPS 1/21, judgment I FSK 1078/24).
• Evidence. Wiretaps, material from other proceedings, testimony of straw men. The limits of their use are discussed in the entries on illegally obtained evidence, on the fruit of the poisonous tree and on wiretap evidence in tax proceedings.
• Assets. The freezing of assets, the STIR block, the prospect of extended confiscation, and the deadlines for appealing against each of these measures.
• The tax proceedings. The assessment decision does not bind the criminal court. Having it set aside in tax litigation before the authority or the administrative court is nonetheless often the shortest route to a discontinuance of the fiscal penal case.

If there is no charge yet and the books raise doubts, the same questions are asked by a tax and legal audit. The difference is that the answers go to the board, not to the case file.

Tax fraud in other jurisdictions

Each of the jurisdictions below punishes tax fraud differently, but on the same principle: intent and the falsification of facts mark the line between avoidance and fraud. The differences lie in the severity of penalties, the treatment of negligence and the tools for recovering the tax.

• Germany. Tax evasion (Steuerhinterziehung, § 370 of the Abgabenordnung) carries up to 5 years, and in particularly serious cases from 6 months to 10 years. The self-disclosure of § 371 AO serves a purpose similar to Polish active remorse, on different conditions. Negligent evasion is an administrative offence (§ 378 AO).
• Switzerland and Austria. The word Steuerbetrug is a Swiss term. Article 186 of the Federal Act on Direct Federal Tax (DBG) punishes the use of forged documents as a crime. Steuerhinterziehung under Article 175 DBG, including the negligent kind, attracts a fine imposed by the tax authority in administrative proceedings. The Austrian counterpart is Abgabenbetrug under § 39 of the Finanzstrafgesetz.
• France. Fraude fiscale under Article 1741 of the Code général des impôts carries 5 years and a fine of EUR 500,000, and in the aggravated type 7 years and EUR 3 million. The fine may be raised to twice the proceeds of the offence.
• England and Wales. The common law offence of cheating the public revenue is punishable with up to life imprisonment. Alongside it stands the Fraud Act 2006. Since 2017 companies have been liable for failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion (Criminal Finances Act 2017).
• United States. Tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 carries up to 5 years and a fine nominally of up to USD 100,000 (USD 500,000 for corporations). 18 U.S.C. § 3571 raises it to USD 250,000 or twice the gain. Filing a false return under § 7206 carries up to 3 years.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between tax fraud and tax avoidance in Poland?

Fraud is the falsification of facts: an untruth in a return, a fictitious invoice, concealed revenue. It is punishable under the FPC or the CC. Avoidance is a real but artificial transaction aimed at a benefit contrary to the purpose of the statute. The authority disregards its effects under Article 119a of the Tax Ordinance and assesses an additional tax liability. The GAAR decision itself does not determine criminal liability, which requires a separate finding of the elements of a specific act and of culpability.

Is an error in a tax return tax fraud?

No. Tax fraud requires intent, at least conditional intent (Article 4 § 2 FPC). An unintentional error satisfies the elements of none of the offences discussed here. The taxpayer files a correction and pays the arrears with interest, and at most the authority may impose a VAT sanction in a moderated amount.

What is the penalty for tax fraud in Poland?

In the basic type, a fine of up to 720 daily rates (in 2026 at most PLN 46,137,600), imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. Where the shortfall is of great value, up to 10 years. For an invoice certifying an untruth above PLN 200,000, from 6 months to 8 years; above PLN 5 million, from 3 to 20 years; above PLN 10 million, from 5 to 25 years (Articles 271a and 277a CC).

When is tax fraud a fiscal misdemeanour and when a fiscal offence?

The dividing line is the statutory threshold, five times the minimum wage at the time of the act: PLN 24,030 in 2026. Up to that amount an act under Articles 54, 56 and 76 FPC is a fiscal misdemeanour punishable by a lump-sum fine; above it, a fiscal offence. An unreliable invoice under Article 62 § 2 FPC is a misdemeanour only in a case of lesser gravity.

Is a board member or an accountant liable for a company’s tax fraud?

Yes, if they managed the company’s economic affairs, in particular its financial affairs, on the basis of a provision, a contract or actual performance (Article 9 § 3 FPC) and acted intentionally. The company is subsidiarily liable for the fine if it obtained or could have obtained a benefit from the act (Article 24 FPC). Board members answer for the tax arrears under Article 116 of the Tax Ordinance where enforcement against the company has proved ineffective and they have not shown an exonerating ground, such as a timely bankruptcy petition.

Does active remorse protect against a penalty for tax fraud?

It does, if the offender notified the authority, disclosed the material circumstances and the persons involved, and paid the amount due before the authority had documented knowledge of the act or began actions aimed at uncovering it (Article 16 FPC). It does not protect a person who directed the commission of the act, nor the organiser of a group unless all its members made the notification. For a false return or book, a legally effective correction with prompt payment of the arrears suffices as long as no proceedings concerning that act have been opened (Article 16a FPC). The correction does not cover an unreliable invoice.

After how many years does tax fraud become time-barred in Poland?

The punishability of a fiscal offence ceases after 5 years, or after 10 years for acts punishable by imprisonment exceeding 3 years. For acts consisting in a shortfall or exposure to a shortfall the period runs from the end of the year in which the tax payment deadline expired and also ceases when the tax liability itself becomes time-barred (Article 44 FPC). Opening proceedings against the offender extends that time by a further 5 or 10 years. The invoice offences of the Criminal Code become time-barred after 15 years (the offence of Article 271a § 1) or 20 years (the felonies of Article 271a § 2 and Article 277a), extended by 10 years once proceedings are opened (Articles 101 and 102 CC).

Related lexicon entries

• Empty Invoices Under Polish Law
• The Good Faith Doctrine in Value Added Tax Law
• VAT Deduction
• Active Remorse / Voluntary Disclosure Under the Polish Fiscal Penal Code
• The Ineffectiveness of Voluntary Disclosure Under Polish Fiscal Penal Law
• The GAAR Clause in Poland: Anti-Avoidance Rules, Defense, Protective Opinions
• Extended Confiscation
• Statute of Limitations for Tax Obligations
• Undisclosed Sources of Income
• Third-Party Tax Liability in Poland: Articles 110 to 117e of the Tax Ordinance

Tax fraud: publications by Skarbiec Law Firm

• Fifteen Years Is Enough. Europe’s Top Court on VAT Fraud, Slow Judges and Why Running a Criminal Group May Cost More Than the Crime
• Guilt by Association: How a Tax System Defines Complicity
• The Boomerang: How Instruments of Repression Turn on Their Makers
• Joint and Several VAT Liability of the Purchaser
• Unpaid VAT by a Counterparty: The Purchaser’s Liability after the CJEU Judgment in Vaniz (C-121/24)
• Your Employee’s Fraud, Your Tax Bill
• The Naked Taxpayer. When the Tax Authorities Come to OnlyFans
• When the Employee, Not the Company, Pays for Fictitious Invoices
• The Purchase of Fictitious Invoices
• Burden of Proof in Fictitious Invoice Allegations
• When Illegal Agreements Meet VAT Law: A Landmark Polish Ruling on Tax Deduction Rights
• The Tax Collector’s Convenience: How Poland Punishes the Innocent in the Name of Fighting Fraud
• The Inaction of Tax Authorities in Fiscal Criminal Proceedings
• The Tax Office That Cried Wolf
• The Empty Invoice: A Crime That Can End Like Murder

Skarbiec Law Firm defends clients in tax fraud cases within its white-collar crime practice. That covers assessing the charge and choosing between active remorse, a correction and a trial, the pre-trial and court proceedings, and the parallel tax proceedings in which the fate of the arrears themselves is decided. For companies that want to assess the risk before the authority does, the starting point is often a written tax opinion.

Legal status as of 1 November 2026.


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.