Author: kancelaria

Amendments to laws and regulations will introduce significant changes for companies employing citizens of Ukraine and Georgia:

• Ukraine: from 4 March 2026, the privileged status will end – it will be necessary to obtain a Polish visa or residence permit.
• Georgia: planned removal from the list of countries covered by simplified employment procedures and visa-free travel.

Impact on employers:

• Need for prior verification of employee status and document validity.
• Extended residence legalisation deadlines – in some regions even exceeding one year.
• Greater risk of staff shortages in key areas of business.

How can we help?

We offer full support in auditing the employment of foreign nationals, preparing procedures and documentation, and representing you before the authorities. This allows our clients to minimise the risk of interruptions in business continuity and avoid costly formal errors.

At yesterday’s press conference, the Minister of Finance presented a draft outline of family foundation taxation from 2026.
The changes will concern:

• A 3-year ‘freeze’ period – the sale of contributed assets (shares, stocks) will be exempt from tax only after 3 years;
• Tax on foreign CFC entities – income of controlled companies will be scrutinised;
• Taxation of foundations in tax-transparent companies – no more loopholes in the regulations;
• Short-term rentals – no tax preferences from 2026, with the interpretation dispute to be resolved to the detriment of taxpayers.

Alert regarding the Ministry of Finance briefing available by clicking the button:

ALERT

More and more entrepreneurs are receiving lawsuits from the Polish Development Fund, which is demanding the return of funds granted under the financial shield. These are often based on laconic, negative recommendations from the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA) stating that there is ‘reasonable suspicion of any kind of abuse’. No evidence, no checks, but a demand for millions to be returned.

If you have received a lawsuit from the PFR, it is not worth delaying an analysis of your legal situation. Effective defence requires knowledge of the specifics of these cases and experience in conducting similar proceedings.

Why is the PFR not always right? Check out the key arguments

Limitation period for claims. PFR files lawsuits in civil courts, claiming that its activities in the implementation of financial shield programmes are not economic activities. Why? This would allow for the application of a 6-year limitation period instead of the 3-year period applicable to claims arising from economic activities. However, many lawsuits are filed after this period, which may result in PFR’s claims being dismissed. In court proceedings, it must be demonstrated that PFR conducts economic activity in the implementation of government financial shield programmes. Assistance in this regard is provided, for example, by the Act of 4 July 2019 on the system of development institutions, the agreement between PFR and the State Treasury (which PFR intentionally submits to the courts in an anonymised version regarding PFR’s remuneration for the implementation of the programmes) and PFR’s individual annual reports for 2020 and 2021, which present the exact amounts of remuneration received by PFR from the State Treasury for running the shield programmes.

Inappropriate changes to the shield regulations. The programme regulations did not originally provide for the possibility of requesting the return of subsidies on the basis of a negative recommendation from the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA) (only the refusal to grant subsidies in the event of a negative recommendation from the CBA was regulated). Subsequent amendments to the regulations were often not effectively implemented in relation to a significant proportion of beneficiaries due to a failure to follow the appropriate procedure, meaning that the demand for the return of subsidies on the basis of the amended regulations is completely unfounded.

Expenditure of subsidies in accordance with the objectives of the programme. Funds from the shield could be used to cover most of the costs of running a business. Proving that the subsidies were spent in accordance with the objective of the programme eliminates any ‘reasonable suspicion of any kind of abuse’. It is therefore worth submitting evidence of the proper expenditure of the subsidy to the court. A demand for repayment by the PFR in such a situation should be considered by the court as an abuse of the fund’s rights.

The non-binding nature of CBA recommendations. A negative recommendation from the CBA does not automatically oblige the PFR to demand repayment. The PFR should make an individual assessment of the risk of abuse and, first and foremost, identify the cause of that risk. No legal provision provides for PFR to be bound by a negative recommendation issued by the CBA. PFR did not carry out any assessment and, as if automatically, issued a decision to recover the subsidy upon receipt of the CBA’s negative recommendation.

PFR failed to provide evidence of the risk of abuse. Not only did PFR fail to assess the CBA’s recommendation at the stage of issuing the decision on repayment, but even at the stage of filing the lawsuits, PFR did not know what the alleged risk of abuse concerned, as it did not make any factual allegations in this regard in the lawsuits. PFR’s litigation strategy is an attempt to persuade the courts to obtain information about alleged abuses on the part of the defendant companies from the CBA. However, this is a flawed strategy, as evidence is not intended to establish facts that the party itself has not presented (or, as in the case of PFR, is not even aware of).

How can we help you?

Our law firm specialises, among other things, in civil proceedings and issues related to obtaining subsidies. We have experience in court proceedings in which PFR sues entrepreneurs for the return of subsidies, as well as in pursuing claims against PFR for improper settlement of subsidies.

It is worth consulting your options and available legal remedies, as this may be crucial for further proceedings.

The government plans to facilitate communication between employers, trade unions and employee councils by allowing greater use of electronic forms. The changes are aimed at simplifying procedures and adapting regulations to the realities of digital communication in the workplace.

The amendment to the Labour Code, the Trade Unions Act and the Act on Informing Employees has been included in the list of legislative work of the Council of Ministers (draft UDER 82). The government is to address the drafts in the third and fourth quarters of 2025.

Main assumptions of the changes

The draft provides for the possibility of communication between employers and trade unions and employee councils also in documentary (e.g. e-mail) or electronic form. This includes, among other things:

• consultations with trade unions on the intention to terminate an employment contract (Article 38 of the Labour Code),
• the transfer of information on the transfer of a workplace or part thereof to a new employer (Article 26¹ of the Trade Unions Act),
• providing data necessary for trade union activities (Article 28 of the Trade Unions Act),
• submitting requests and providing responses regarding information on management (Article 32(9¹) of the Trade Unions Act),
• informing employees about the economic situation, employment and planned organisational changes (Article 13 of the Act on Informing Employees).

Positions of trade unions and employers

Representatives of employee organisations declare their openness to digitisation, but point to the need for voluntary participation and mutual agreement on the forms of communication. Trade union experts emphasise that changing the form of consultation, especially in matters relating to redundancies, should not weaken the protective function of labour law. In their view, the new regulations should allow for the possibility of agreeing on communication rules in collective labour agreements.

On the other hand, representatives of the employer community welcome the direction of the changes. They point out that the electronic form not only speeds up communication processes, but also reduces the administrative burden and facilitates the documentation of consultations. Some experts are calling for even more far-reaching reforms, such as the possibility of concluding employment contracts in electronic form using a trusted or personal signature, which could better meet the needs of the labour market.

What does this mean for employers?

If the bill is passed, employers will gain new opportunities for formal communication with trade unions and employee councils. It is already worth:

• analyse your internal procedures in terms of their digitisation,
• identify areas where electronic forms could bring savings
• and greater efficiency,
• prepare proposals for agreements with the trade unions, especially if collective agreements are in place in your organisation.

How can we help you?

Our labour law team supports employers in the following areas:

• implementing new forms of communication with trade unions and employee councils,
• adapting procedures to planned legislative changes,
• consulting with employee organisations in accordance with the new requirements,
• preparing documents and internal policies in line with the proposed legislation.

If you need support in implementing the proposed changes or would like to discuss the possible risks, please contact us.

New General Interpretation of the Ministry of Finance

On 29 July 2025, the Minister of Finance and Economy issued a general interpretation concerning the reporting of tax schemes (MDR) in the case of an increase in the share capital of a capital company where part of the contribution in excess of the nominal value of the shares acquired is allocated to the company’s reserve capital.

When is reporting not required?

The Minister indicated that not every transaction with a premium is subject to MDR reporting. In particular, as indicated by the Minister, a situation where the surplus contribution does not allow for the acquisition of a larger number of shares is not subject to reporting. In practice, however, such increases are not common. The Minister further indicated that an increase in share capital from agio will not be subject to reporting if the objectives of such an increase were other than tax purposes, e.g. resulted from an investment agreement or articles of association.

When is reporting required?

As indicated by the MF, the MDR obligation arises if: the purpose of the premium structure was to deliberately reduce the PCC tax base by not increasing the share capital by the entire value of the cash contribution. In such a situation, the main benefit criterion is met and, in addition, the general identifying feature (e.g. standardised documentation) is fulfilled. In addition, compliance with the definition of a qualified beneficiary and the cross-border nature of the transaction should be verified.

Does the general interpretation really dispel taxpayers’ doubts?

Although the general interpretation of the Minister of Finance and Economy of 29 July 2025 was intended to clarify the rules for reporting tax schemes (MDR) in the context of increasing share capital with a share premium, in our opinion it does not introduce any significant changes to the practice developed so far.

However, although it does not provide complete clarity, it does question the automatic reporting of every share premium.

In practice, taxpayers should examine each case separately and ensure that the transactions carried out are economically justified.