From this article, you will learn about:
- The axis of the dispute: trust in the state versus the inexorable passage of time
- The chronology of events: the anatomy of risk
- Why the courts (both the Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court) dismissed the complaint
- Risk analysis: the illusory nature of legal protection
- How to safeguard claims
Does the final and binding removal from legal circulation of an erroneous individual tax ruling—issued only after the expiration of the limitation period, open the way to recovery of tax unduly paid?
In its judgment of 8 January 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) provided an answer that should serve as a clear warning signal for every taxpayer engaged in a dispute with the tax authorities. The Court resolved a conflict between two fundamental institutions of the Polish Tax Ordinance (Ordynacja podatkowa, “O.p.”): the objective statute of limitations for tax liabilities and the principle of trust in public authorities, implemented through the protective function of individual tax rulings.
The Axis of the Dispute: Trust in the State vs. the Inexorable Passage of Time
The case concerned a fundamental collision between two provisions of the Tax Ordinance:
- Article 79 § 2 O.p. (extinction of the right to file a claim for overpayment after the statute of limitations has expired), and
- Article 14k § 1 O.p. (legal protection resulting from compliance with an individual tax ruling).
In other words, does the final elimination of an erroneous individual tax ruling from legal circulation after the limitation period has expired allow the taxpayer to recover tax paid without legal basis, or does the statute of limitations constitute an insurmountable barrier?
Relying on the negative position of the Director of the National Tax Information (KIS), the taxpayer paid the tax for years while simultaneously contesting the ruling before the administrative courts. When the taxpayer ultimately prevailed and demonstrated that the tax had been paid without legal basis, the authority held that the liability had already become time-barred and therefore refused to refund the amounts paid.
Chronology of Events – The Anatomy of Risk
The key dates in this case illustrate how easily one may fall into a systemic trap:
- March 2017 – issuance of a negative individual ruling. The taxpayer complies with it, thereby protecting itself against interest and fiscal penal sanctions.
- 31 December 2020 – expiration of the statute of limitations for the disputed tax periods.
- July 2021 – a final court judgment annulling the erroneous ruling. A success? Only an apparent one.
- December 2021 – the taxpayer files a claim for overpayment and meets a dead end: the authority refuses to initiate proceedings due to the expiration of the limitation period.
Why Did the Courts (Both the Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court) Dismiss the Complaint?
Both instances adopted the position that budgetary stability takes precedence over the principle of trust. Their reasoning rested on three pillars:
The Absolute Nature of the Statute of Limitations
Article 79 § 2 O.p. is uncompromising. It excludes the possibility of initiating overpayment proceedings once the tax liability has become time-barred. The right to a refund expires definitively with the end of the five-year limitation period, regardless of whether the taxpayer was pursuing its claims during that time.
No Impact of Litigation on the Running of the Limitation Period
Challenging an individual ruling before an administrative court neither interrupts nor suspends the running of the statute of limitations for the tax liability. The interpretative procedure and the assessment (or overpayment) procedure operate on parallel tracks.
The EU Standard (Caterpillar)
The Regional Administrative Court referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-500/16, holding that a Member State is entitled to establish limitation periods for tax refunds, even if the infringement of law (an erroneous interpretation by the tax authorities) is confirmed only after those periods have expired.
Risk Analysis: The Illusory Nature of Legal Protection
This judgment materializes an extremely significant systemic risk for businesses, the risk of a “trust trap.” A taxpayer who wishes to preserve the protection afforded by Article 14k O.p. must comply with the individual ruling. However, if the taxpayer seeks to recover the amounts paid, it must file a claim for overpayment before the expiration of the limitation period—which in practice means initiating a refund procedure based on a position contrary to the very ruling with which it continues to comply. This is a legislative paradox.
Filing a refund claim even one day after the deadline results in a refusal to initiate proceedings (Article 165a § 1 O.p.), definitively closing the path to substantive adjudication of the taxpayer’s arguments.
How to Secure Claims?
The NSA judgment in Case I FSK 240/23 confirms a rigorous line of case law: the protection resulting from an individual tax ruling does not extend to statutes of limitations.
If you are involved in an interpretative dispute and the limitation periods are approaching their end (for example, in 2026 the critical year is 2021), merely waiting for the administrative court’s judgment is a highly risky strategy. It is essential to file a claim for overpayment before the end of the calendar year. This should be done “preventively,” even if the dispute over the interpretation itself is still pending before the court.
Gerard Goliasz
At KR Group, we analyze our clients’ ongoing disputes from the perspective of limitation risk. We invite you to contact us to verify whether your overpayment claims are secure.
