Did your notification of changing the form of taxation not reach the tax office? Was the application submitted through CEiDG not processed? Are you facing an additional PIT payment according to the scale? It turns out not everything is lost. All thanks to the Supreme Administrative Court ruling of February 22, 2024, with case number II FSK 710/21.
The topic of an ineffective change in the form of taxation and its consequences has already been discussed by us earlier:
NOTIFYING A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF TAXATION NOT ONLY THROUGH CEIDG
In the ruling of February 22, 2024 (case number II FSK 710/21), the Supreme Administrative Court dealt with this issue based on Article 9a, paragraph 2 of the PIT Act (concerning the flat tax rate).
Article 9a, paragraph 2 of the PIT Act
Taxpayers may choose the method of taxing income from non-agricultural economic activity according to the rules specified in Article 30c. In this case, they are required to submit a written statement of choice of this method of taxation to the appropriate head of the tax office by the 20th day of the month following the month in which the first income from this title was obtained in the tax year, or by the end of the tax year if the first such income was obtained in December of that tax year.
This provision obliges to submit a written statement. This statement must be submitted by the 20th day of the month following the month in which the first income was obtained in the given tax year, or by the end of the tax year if the first income appeared in December.
In the ruling of February 22, 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court noted that “(…) According to Article 60 of the Civil Code, with the exceptions provided for in the law, the will of the person performing a legal act may be expressed by any behavior of that person which sufficiently reveals their will, including by revealing this will in electronic form (declaration of will).“
In the case under consideration, the taxpayer made a statement in the title of the transfer, indicating that their payment was to be credited towards the obligation under the flat tax. The content of this raises no doubts.
The Supreme Administrative Court recognized that entering the content of the statement in the title of the transfer meets the requirement of being in writing, as the legislator did not strictly reserve the written form for this type of statement (unlike in the case of opting out of the 19% tax rate, according to Article 9a, paragraph 2b of the PIT Act before October 5, 2021). Thus, the requirement of being in writing was fulfilled by the taxpayer. A signature is not necessary if it is clear who made the statement.
The ruling is groundbreaking, and we should be pleased with such a favorable line of jurisprudence for taxpayers! However, this is currently an isolated case, and the matter was decided based on an interpretation by the National Tax Information (KIS). So, we will have to wait a bit longer to see if other decisions and practices follow this method of interpreting the provisions.
If you have questions regarding changing the form of taxation, visit www.outsourced.pl.
