Judgment summary
The Provincial Administrative Court in Opole dismissed the skarga (complaint) brought by K. sp. z o.o. w M. against a postanowienie of the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Opolu of 10 February 2026 (nr 1601-IOV-2.4110.29.2025), which had upheld a decision of the Naczelnik Opolskiego Urzędu Celno-Skarbowego in Opole of 28 November 2025 refusing to suspend tax proceedings concerning withholding tax (podatek u źródła) on payments under art. 22 ust. 1 uCIT.
The Company had requested suspension under art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 of the Ordynacja podatkowa, arguing that a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) had been initiated under art. 26 ust. 1-2 of the Poland-Cyprus double taxation convention (Dz.U. 1993 nr 117 poz. 523) and that this procedure could affect the outcome of the domestic proceedings.
The Court held that suspension under art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op is facultative (fakultatywna), not obligatory, and that the tax authority had properly and sufficiently individualised its reasoning for refusing suspension, particularly regarding the risk of limitation of the tax obligation (przedawnienie) before conclusion of the MAP. The skarga was dismissed under art. 151 ppsa.
Background
In pisma dated 20 October 2025 and 24 October 2025, the Company, relying on art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op, submitted a conditional request to suspend tax proceedings conducted by the Naczelnik Opolskiego Urzędu Celno-Skarbowego (NUCS) concerning correctness of the Company's obligations as a withholding tax payer, in respect of zryczałtowany podatek dochodowy od osób prawnych (podatek u źródła) on payments described in art. 22 ust. 1 uCIT.
The Company argued that a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) had been initiated under the Poland-Cyprus UPO, which could influence the outcome of the tax proceedings.
By postanowienie of 28 November 2025, NUCS refused to suspend the proceedings. The Company filed a zażalenie (interlocutory appeal). By postanowienie of 10 February 2026, the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Opolu (DIAS) upheld the refusal, treating the underlying amount at stake as 8.851.138 zł.
Core dispute
The dispute concerned whether the initiation of a MAP under art. 26 ust. 1-2 UPO obliged, or should have obliged, the tax authority to suspend the domestic tax (odwoławcze) proceedings under art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op, or whether the decision to suspend remained within the discretionary power (uznanie administracyjne) of the authority.
The Company argued that DIAS had exceeded the bounds of administrative discretion, had failed to properly assess the economic and procedural consequences of refusing suspension (including risk to its liquidity from a potential obligation to pay approximately 8.851.138 zł before the MAP concluded), and had wrongly relied on the risk of limitation of the tax obligation (przedawnienie) as grounds for refusal, in breach of art. 201 § 1b pkt 2, art. 121 § 1, art. 122, art. 210 § 4, art. 124 and art. 70 § 1 op, in conjunction with art. 2 of the Constitution.
DIAS maintained that the fakultatywna nature of the suspension mechanism under art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op meant the authority had to weigh the taxpayer's interest against the fiscal interest, including the risk that continued suspension would allow the tax obligation to become time-barred, and that this had been properly done.
Court findings
The Court found that the precondition under art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op (initiation of MAP) had been met, given that DIAS was conducting appellate proceedings and the MAP had been initiated, but held that fulfilment of this precondition does not automatically result in suspension.
The Court held that DIAS had discharged its obligation to individualise its reasoning, referring to the approaching limitation period, the lack of certainty that any eventual MAP settlement would be accepted by the Company, and the fact that, per art. 26 ust. 2 UPO, any settlement reached would take effect irrespective of the limitation period under domestic law.
The Court found the argument concerning risk of limitation of the tax obligation to be significant, noting that the Company, while entitled to pursue its domestic appeal rights, appeared to seek suspension in a manner that could result in the obligation becoming time-barred (art. 59 § 1 pkt 9 w zw. z art. 70 § 1 op).
The Court held that the Company's economic and financial arguments (impact on liquidity, reputational effects, group-wide exposure) were legally irrelevant to the incidental proceedings on the suspension request, since art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op does not provide for such an economic criterion; such arguments would be relevant to an application for a payment facility under art. 67a and art. 67b op or a stay of execution under art. 61 § 3 ppsa, not to this suspension request.
The Court further noted that suspension of proceedings is an exception to the principle of speed and simplicity in tax proceedings (art. 125 op) and requires significant circumstances to justify departure from that principle, which were not established in this case. The Court also observed that Polish law does not recognise binding precedent, so favourable decisions issued to other taxpayers or group companies (including by the Naczelnik Urzędu Skarbowego) could not determine the outcome of this case, absent a demonstrated direct dependency between the cases.
Outcome
The Court dismissed the skarga (oddalono skargę) pursuant to art. 151 ppsa, upholding the postanowienie of the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Opolu of 10 February 2026 refusing to suspend the tax proceedings. The judgment is noted as nieprawomocne (not final).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether initiation of a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under art. 26 ust. 1-2 of the Poland-Cyprus double taxation convention obliges the tax authority to suspend domestic tax proceedings under art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op.
- Whether the fakultatywna (facultative) nature of art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op permits the tax authority discretion to refuse suspension despite an active MAP.
- Whether the risk of limitation of the tax obligation (przedawnienie) is a legitimate factor for the tax authority to weigh in refusing suspension.
- Whether the tax authority adequately individualised its reasoning for refusing to suspend proceedings.
- Whether economic and financial hardship arguments raised by the taxpayer are relevant to a decision on suspension under art. 201 § 1b pkt 2 op.
- Whether earlier favourable decisions issued to other taxpayers within the same corporate group are binding or relevant to the present suspension decision.