Ongoing MDR support
The multitude of changes and complexity of tax laws are posing new challenges for entrepreneurs conducting their business in Poland. Nowadays, entrepreneurs must be vigilant and discerning in tax matters, which in turn translates into an increase in duties on the side of monitoring changes in regulations in order to minimize risks and correctly fulfill their accounting and reporting obligations.
These additional responsibilities as well as the development of tools used by the tax authorities to monitor the correctness of settlements means that doing business is subject to a greater risk of detection of irregularities than ever before. This, in turn, can be associated with negative consequences from the tax authorities.
That is why it is so important to manage the tax part of a company’s activities in cooperation with qualified tax advisors, who stay abreast of the rushing changes in the law as well as the practice of tax authorities and the rulings of administrative courts.
Who is it for?
- Is your accounting department facing a lot of doubts, which it is trying to resolve online?
- Is your company planning to start operations on the Polish market?
- The amount of changes causes anxiety about the correctness of accounting and reporting obligations?
Our support scope:
- Preparing opinions and comments.
- Providing ongoing advice on MDR.
- Analyzing transactions for proper identification and reporting of MDR.
Contact one of our experts on MDR
Winning the case before the Supreme Administrative Court
on tax control for 2013 and determination of tax liability. Ref. act II FSK 585/20
Winning the case before the Supreme Administrative Court
regarding the Company's CIT exemption. Ref. act II FSK 1250/22
Winning case before the Voivodeship Administrative Court
on alleged abuse of VAT law. Ref. no. III Sa/Wa 203/22
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, ref. no. I FSK 1816/20
The court objected to the very common approach among the tax authorities, but also often among the courts, of attributing an implicit awareness of participation in a fraud by pointing out that the evidence on the record did not show that such awareness existed. The court ordered that very precise criteria be taken into account that would make such awareness of fraud plausible.
