When the Tax Authority Comes Knocking
In Poland, the taxman’s reach extends further than most people imagine—and the line between protecting your assets and committing a crime is considerably thinner than you might think.
The seizure of assets by tax authorities represents the final instrument of coercion in the state’s fiscal arsenal. Before the revenue officer arrives at your door, however, the taxpayer passes through a sequence of events whose understanding may well determine the fate of everything they own. The essential question is this: Can one effectively shield oneself—and where, precisely, does the boundary lie between legitimate asset protection and criminal conduct?
The Preemptive Strike
There is a widespread assumption among taxpayers that enforcement becomes a threat only after a payment deadline has passed. This is a miscalculation that can prove ruinous. Under Article 33 of Poland’s Tax Ordinance, if there exists a “justified concern” that a tax obligation will go unfulfilled, authorities may secure assets even before any arrears have materialized.
What constitutes “justified concern”? Recent administrative court rulings have given shape to this otherwise elastic phrase. As the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gorzów Wielkopolski observed in October 2024: “A justified concern must exist at the moment of ruling on the matter of security, yet this concern relates simultaneously to an event that has not yet occurred.” Tax authorities need not prove that a taxpayer will fail to pay—it suffices to establish the probability of such risk.
The grounds for asset security include, in particular: persistent failure to meet public-law obligations, disposal of assets in ways that could impede enforcement, concealment of income, use of unreliable invoices, and maintenance of accounting records inconsistent with established principles. The catalogue remains open; an authority may invoke any circumstance that renders the non-fulfillment of an obligation probable.
Security measures may be initiated during the course of a tax audit or customs and fiscal audit. Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court confirmed in June 2024 that the competence to issue a security decision does not require prior delivery of audit findings—the authority may act sooner.
The Road from Arrears to Enforcement
When the expected tax does not appear in the treasury’s account following a personal or corporate income tax filing, the revenue office does not immediately resort to compulsion. Regulations governing creditor conduct prescribe a graduated sequence: text messages, emails, phone calls bearing information about the overdue amount, interest rates, and the specter of enforcement proceedings.
Officials deploy these softer measures primarily for diligent taxpayers and modest sums. The final summons arrives as a written reminder calling for voluntary payment along with reminder costs and accrued interest.
Should the debtor fail to settle the obligation within seven days of receiving this reminder, enforcement proceedings are set in motion. A critical consequence follows: the application of an enforcement measure interrupts the running of the tax obligation’s limitation period. This explains why, toward the end of each calendar year, revenue offices intensify their activities—the objective being to prevent obligations from expiring.
What the Tax Authority May Seize
Under Article 26 of the Tax Ordinance, a taxpayer bears liability for tax obligations with the entirety of their assets. For an entrepreneur, this means exposure to seizure of both business property—inventory, receivables from deliveries, funds in business accounts—and personal assets: cash, wages, savings, pensions, company shares, vehicles, real estate.
Yet the law protects a debtor’s existential minimum. The Act on Enforcement Proceedings in Administration shields household items and personal effects (bedding, everyday and work clothing), a thirty-day supply of food and fuel, 760 złotys in cash, tools necessary for gainful employment (excluding vehicles) along with raw materials for seven days of work, personal documents, wedding rings, and objects of religious observance.
Bank account seizure remains among the most frequently employed measures—swift and effective from the taxman’s perspective.
Marital Property and Tax Enforcement
The tax authority may reach joint marital property if the tax obligation arose during the existence of the marital property regime. Spouses filing jointly bear joint and several liability.
The taxman cannot, however, seize a spouse’s separate property—assets acquired before marriage, inheritances, gifts designated as separate, intellectual property rights. A prenuptial agreement establishing separate property regimes, concluded before the obligation arose, may shield the non-business-owning spouse’s assets.
Yet a prenuptial agreement offers no protection if the spouse assisted in running the business. Article 110 of the Tax Ordinance further provides for a divorced spouse’s liability for obligations incurred during the marriage—up to the value of their share of joint property following division.
Security Decisions: What Recent Case Law Reveals
Administrative court practice from 2024–2025 offers guidance for taxpayers challenging security decisions in tax disputes.
On the obligation to justify. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Wrocław emphasized in July 2024: “The requirement that an authority substantiate the existence of a tax obligation in the amount it anticipates in no way permits unsubstantiated, arbitrary, groundless, or unlawful assertions.”
On the taxpayer’s financial situation. The Supreme Administrative Court noted in October 2024: “Neither the anticipated amount of the obligation nor its character may constitute sufficient grounds for applying compulsory security. It is further necessary that the taxpayer’s financial condition indicate that enforcement proceedings would prove ineffective.”
On fictitious invoices and security. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Gliwice stated in February 2025: “The mere substantiation that a taxpayer employs invoices that do not reflect actual economic transactions does not yet justify establishing security over the taxpayer’s assets.” A connection must be drawn between this finding and an analysis of the party’s financial resources.
Appeals lie from security decisions to the Voivodeship Administrative Court and, subsequently, to the Supreme Administrative Court by way of cassation complaint.
Asset Protection and the Limits of Legality
Entrepreneurs seeking ways to shield their assets must understand where the boundary lies between permissible prevention and criminal conduct.
Legitimate instruments of protection. Actions undertaken before an obligation arises—or when no grounds for security exist—may include: selecting an appropriate legal form for conducting business (a capital company separates personal from business assets), establishing marital property separation, creating a family foundation for succession and asset protection purposes, diversifying assets across different asset classes and jurisdictions, and employing private investment insurance policies with specific legal characteristics.
Conduct risking criminal liability. Asset transfers made in the face of existing or anticipated obligations may result in charges of: acting to the detriment of creditors under Article 300 of the Criminal Code—when a debtor frustrates or diminishes creditor satisfaction by concealing, disposing of, or encumbering assets; money laundering under Article 299—when doubts exist regarding the legal provenance of funds; and apparent bankruptcy under Article 301—when actions aim to create fictitious insolvency.
A creditor—including the tax authority—may also bring a civil action by way of the actio Pauliana, seeking to have a disposition declared ineffective.
Time as the critical variable. Protective structures must be established before any threat materializes. A foundation created the day before a property security order is issued will protect nothing—it will become the subject of analysis for fraudulent transfer. Effective protection means planning in peacetime, not improvising under siege.
The Liability of Company Officers
In the case of limited liability companies, enforcement against company assets may prove unsuccessful. The tax authority then reaches for the personal liability of management board members for the company’s tax obligations under Article 116 of the Tax Ordinance.
A board member may escape liability by demonstrating that a bankruptcy petition was filed in due time or that restructuring proceedings were initiated, or that the failure to file occurred through no fault of their own, or by identifying company assets sufficient to satisfy the arrears.
Conclusion
The seizure of assets by tax authorities follows its own logic and sequence. Familiarity with the relevant provisions, case law, and available defensive measures permits informed action—whether in the context of a dispute with the tax authority or preventive risk management. What remains essential is the distinction between lawful asset protection and conduct that may give rise to criminal liability. That distinction demands professional analysis of each specific situation—universal prescriptions do not exist.
Robert Nogacki is a licensed legal counsel and the founder of Skarbiec Law Firm in Warsaw.
Further Reading:
- Criminal Charges: When Your Life Is at Stake
- Tax Decision
- Tax Proceedings
- The Lawyer as Strategist: On the Art of Counsel
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.
