Separation of income sources in corporate income tax

To the end 2017 under the Law of 15 February 1992 on corporate income tax[1] We've dealt with one revenue source. As a general rule, all revenue generated by taxpayers of that tax, whatever the reason, was cumulated and after deduction of revenue costs and deduction of any losses from previous years, taxed 19% Tax rate.

However, this has changed since 1 January 2018 Amendment of this Act[2] has introduced a breakdown into two revenue sources: revenue from capital gains and revenue from other activities. The article discusses individual interpretations concerning the accounting of these revenues by taxpayers.

Introduction

The portfolio of capital gains includes both revenues that have so far been included in corporate income and additional types of income.

Capital gains revenue is included (Article 7b the Corporate Income Tax Act):

• 1) revenue constituting income from corporate profit (including, for example, dividends, redemption income, liquidation income, revenue from mergers and divisions);
• 2) other revenue from shares, including their disposal or disposal for redemption and exchange of shares;
• 3) revenue from contributions in kind;
• 4) revenue from the disposal of all rights and obligations in a company not a legal person;
• 5) revenue from the disposal of receivables previously acquired by the taxpayer and receivables resulting from the proceeds of capital gains;

6) revenue from:

• (a) property rights (authorised or related property rights, licences, industrial property rights and know-how), excluding revenue from licences directly linked to the obtaining of revenue not included in capital gains,
• (b) income from securities and derivatives of financial instruments, excluding derivatives of financial instruments to hedge income or costs not included in capital gains,
• (c) revenue from participation in investment funds,

(d) revenue from the lease, lease or other contract of a similar nature relating to the rights referred to in points (a) to (c) above and the proceeds from their disposal.

All revenue that is not listed in the capital gains revenue catalogue is income from other activities. Taxable persons are obliged to qualify for the income in question for one or two sources and adequate distribution of revenue costs.

Costs which cannot be directly attributed to a particular income will be allocated to individual sources on the basis of the proportion of revenue included in the source to the total revenue. The difference between revenue and costs attributable to the source is income or loss from the source. Revenue from both sources of revenue is taxed the same 19% Tax rate.

This distribution of revenue per source does not apply to revenues from insurers, banks, cooperative savings and credit unions and financial institutions. Any revenue generated by these entities shall be included in the revenue from the remaining activities (excluding dividends and an increase in capital from profit).

Loss incurred within the framework one revenue sources cannot be offset by income from second sources. The loss from a given source of revenue can only be deducted from the income generated by the same source of revenue.

The principle of deduction of loss by five subsequent tax years and the annual loss deduction limit 50% loss from one tax year.

It is also important that, on the basis of transitional provisions, the deduction of the tax loss incurred before the entry into force of the revised rules is subject to old rules, i.e. loss from this period may be deducted from income from both sources of revenue.

This change has had a very significant impact on the accounts of taxpayers who have asked questions to tax authorities in this respect. The following will be discussed in individual interpretations by topic.

Interest costs on loans

In an individual interpretation of 25 July 2018[3] The Authority accepted that interest on loans should share the fate of the loan resulting in revenue. Since interest on credit/loans is an accessory, they should be eligible for a source of revenue similar to the revenue and costs arising from the spending of the loan.

In particular, the Authority considered that interest on loans entered into for the acquisition of shares/shares was related to income eligible from 1 January 2018 as income from capital gains. This is because, for example, in the event of the divestment of the shares, the revenue in question will arise.

Under Article 7b(1)(3) point (a) the Corporate Income Tax Act Under this provision, income from capital gains is considered to be revenue from the sale of shares, including disposals made for their redemption.

Consequently, if the loan has been drawn up in order to obtain revenue from the source of capital gains, interest arising from the borrowing to obtain revenue from the source should also increase the cost of obtaining income from capital gains.

The approach of tax authorities does not alter the purpose for which the shares are acquired or the circumstances of that acquisition.

For example, in an individual interpretation from 16 May 2018[4] The situation where the applicant belonged to the steel production group and suffered losses due to the lack of sufficient raw materials was presented.

In order to avoid such situations, the applicant decided to acquire shares in a related company which, within the group, is responsible for concluding contracts with suppliers of raw materials.

The acquisition of the company's shares was to allow the applicant to conclude contracts with suppliers more efficiently, which would be directly translated into the results of its activities.

Consequently, the applicant argued that the expenditure related to the acquisition of the shares was related to its business activity and should be allocated to costs reducing revenue from other sources.

However, this did not convince the authority which considered that interest on the loan for the purchase of shares should be considered as a cost incurred from the source of capital gains.

What is interesting, the Authority also indicated that interest does not constitute expenditure on acquisition of shares, but is payment for the capital raised[5] .

In the above-mentioned individual interpretation from 25 July 2018 The Authority also considered that, in order to link interest to the source of revenue, it is irrelevant that the company is required to repay interest on the loan entered into for the acquisition of the shares by its predecessor. Consequently, the company should recognise interest on this loan as the cost of obtaining the return on capital gains.

Such a position of the tax authorities may raise some doubts, particularly if it is taken into account that until recently both in the practice of tax authorities and in the case-law of administrative courts, the approach that expenditure on the loan for the purchase of shares does not warrant their effective acquisitions has prevailed. Consequently, they are only at the expense of financing such acquisitions and cannot be regarded as expenses for the acquisition or acquisition of shares or shares[6] .

The inclusion of interest on loans for the purchase of shares in costs that reduce the revenue from the source of capital gains only because potentially acquired shares can be sold seems too far-reaching. There is no certainty as to when and whether the sale will occur at all.

In the facts presented, applicants also achieved income from capital gains, but the problem arises when the taxpayer does not sell shares/shares in a given tax year and does not achieve any other income from the source of capital gains.

At the same time in an individual interpretation of 20 September 2018[7] The Authority has confirmed that, in the event of the use of both loans and issued bonds to finance the core business, interest will not be the cost of capital gains. They will decrease the revenue from the so-called operating activity.

Revenue from the sale of receivables

The proceeds from the source of capital gains include the proceeds from the sale of receivables. However, it is only claims that have previously been acquired by the taxpayer and those that arise from the proceeds of capital gains (Article 7b(1)(5) the Corporate Income Tax Act). Based on an individual interpretation from 5 July 2018[8] It can be concluded that, according to the tax authorities, this provision also applies to inappropriate factoring.

According to the Authority’s position, it is not relevant that the solvency risk of the debtor was not transferred to the bank when the debt was transferred. It is also irrelevant that the applicant shows these claims on the balance sheet, while the remaining financial commitments include an obligation to the bank.

Similarly, it does not matter that the applicant continues to confirm the balances with the debtor, monitor the repayments and renew the collateral.

Article 7b(1)(5) the Corporate Income Tax Act It is clear that, when the taxpayer has acquired claims and subsequently has disposed of them, the revenue it will achieve as a result of these circumstances should be eligible for capital gains.

Income from property rights

The revenue from the source of capital gains includes income from property rights such as (Article 7b(1)(6) point (a) the Corporate Income Tax Act):

• 1) copyright or related property rights,
• 2) licences,
• 3) industrial property rights and
• 4) the value equivalent to knowledge acquired in the industrial, commercial, scientific or organisational fields (know-how).

On the other hand, capital gains revenue does not include licence revenue directly related to the acquisition of revenue not included in capital gains (Article 7b(1)(6) point (a) the Corporate Income Tax Act). According to the tax authorities’ interpretations, taxpayers’ doubts arise from the fact that the license is directly linked to revenue not included in capital gains.

In fact, which is the subject of an individual interpretation from 5 June 2018[9] a description of the situation in which the applicant acted in the development and construction sectors and was the dominant entity in the capital group.

As part of his business, he also made investments through special purpose vehicles, including limited companies, in which he was a shareholder. Special purpose companies were involved in the implementation of certain construction investments as developers. The applicant for company participation both generated revenue and incurred costs.

Revenues and costs were mainly related to the current activity of these companies, i.e. development activities. Developers, when carrying out investments, acted under the trademark of the applicant. The applicant granted a fee-based licence to developers to use the mark.

The tax authority considered that the revenue from the licence was a return on capital gains. It argued that the licence is granted on the basis of a separate licence agreement, not a contract that generates revenues from its business. Consequently, the revenue generated is not a consequence of the applicant’s participation in the companies but of the conclusion of a separate agreement.

The costs incurred by the applicant when participating in the special purpose vehicle shall not be reduced by the income of the applicant generated from the capital gains. The Authority stated that there is no causal link between the revenue obtained from the licence and the costs of participation in the special purpose vehicle.

In addition, from the point of view of the special purpose vehicle, the licence fees borne by the applicant in connection with its participation in the special purpose vehicle are linked to the receipt of revenues from the economic activity carried out.

Only costs directly linked to the licence fee, such as mark protection charges, depreciation charges, can be considered as costs that could reduce the applicant’s profits.

A different position was expressed in the personal interpretation of the Director of KIS from 6 July 2018[10], in which revenue from the licence to use the trade mark has been included in revenue from other sources. The factual situation also concerned the developer and the special purpose vehicles, but the licence was granted on the basis of a service contract in which the applicant undertook to provide other services to the special purpose vehicles.

In an individual interpretation of 25 April 2018[11] the authority has confirmed that, in the event that the parent company has granted a special-purpose sub-license by the parent company, the income from this is to be classified as capital gains (e.g.

when the parent company acquires licenses for IT applications for the special-purpose company and then makes a reference to the special-purpose company).

According to the Authority, capital gains also include situations where the premium for a licence (sublicence) includes additional services (similar to those granted by the original seller) under the remuneration received, such as participation in workshops, training for a certain number of people, without the need for additional fees.

However, in accordance with the Authority's position, in the case of a reference to a company for the purpose of expenditure on maintenance services, i.e.

technical assistance and maintenance services, which consist in the operation/maintenance of the acquired software/app licence or their independent provision on the basis of the purchased licence (but without its sub-licensing), revenue from this is to be classified as revenue from the source of economic activity.

Both revenues should be allocated when resale is made to licenses (sub-licenses) and maintenance services (both when they have previously been acquired from an external entity and when they are provided using the applicant’s own resources).

Licensing revenues should be assigned to the source of capital gains, while the revenue from the maintenance service should be assigned to a ‘other source of revenue’. This view follows from the fact that, in practice, tax authorities have been confirmed that maintenance services are not licensed (e.g.

in an individual interpretation from 28 June 2016[12]).

On the other hand, if the applicant only provides IT services to related companies, based on the licence acquired but does not sub-license it, the Authority considers that the revenue generated in full should be included in the ‘other revenue source’. Even if, for the purpose of determining the level of remuneration for services provided as part of an IT service, the cost incurred for the purchase of a licence for a given application or maintenance service is taken into account, it should not be released and assigned to the source of capital gains.

As is apparent from the individual interpretation given 21 June 2018[13], the business revenue of the authorities includes remuneration for the software use contract in the so-called SaaS model.

It means that the company does not provide marketing services to the counterparty consisting in the organisation and operation of a marketing programme, but makes available to it online an Internet platform for project management (so-called CRM) or a website.

For the duration of the software agreement in the SaaS model, the company grants the client a license to use the software.

According to the Authority, licensing the use of software in the SaaS model, in which the applicant provides a service to the counterparty to provide the internet platform for project management or website, will not generate revenues from capital gains. The exemption from the capital gains category in question will apply.

Under Article 7b(1)(6) point (a) the Corporate Income Tax Act – the granting of a licence directly linked to the receipt of income from the taxable person's core business. This revenue will not be a return on capital gains, as the licensing takes place here under the access to software services agreement, i.e.

as part of the applicant's business.

An example of a licence from which revenues are credited with capital gains is indicated in the individual interpretation of the Director of KIS from 15 June 2018[14]. Such a tax authority considered the revenue generated through a limited partnership which makes the trade mark available to its partners for consideration.

In the situation analysed by the Authority, the partners operate in the wood industry, while the main source of income for the limited partnership is the revenue obtained from the licensing payments of the partners.

The applicant argued that the revenue from the licence is directly related to the revenue from the sale of goods bearing the trade mark of a limited partnership, since the marking of the goods by trade marks is a condition for their sale at an appropriate level and for obtaining revenue from it.

Also, a limited company would not receive remuneration from its shareholders if they did not generate revenue from the sale of goods.

However, the Authority found that the direct link between the profits of the limited partnership in the form of royalties and the revenue obtained by that company not included in the capital gains cannot be seen.

Therefore established under Article 7b(1)(6) point (a) the Corporate Income Tax Act the exemption does not apply in the case under consideration. The income of the limited partnership in the form of royalties is therefore a return on capital gains.

The Authority also stressed that the attribution of this income to a partner on the basis of Article 5 the Corporate Income Tax Act, As indicated, he will not change his character.

This income, which is in the limited company the return on capital gains, will remain for the company the return on capital gains and will increase the shareholder's revenue from that source according to Article 5(1a) the Corporate Income Tax Act

In an individual interpretation of 25 July 2018[15] to the capital gains, the Authority classified the revenue generated through the limited partnership for granting the software licence which the company purchased from the licensor and sold to its customers. Together with its licenses, the company sold IT services.

Both the licensing and the provision of services were based on one Deals. The services provided were related to the software covered by the licence and consisted of its maintenance or technical assistance associated with it.

The applicant indicated that it was not possible for the client to acquire the IT services themselves without the acquisition of the licence as they remained closely related to the software for which the licence was granted.

However, the Authority did not agree that such licences are directly linked to the receipt of revenues from other sources. According to the Authority, the remuneration for the contract concluded with the client of the limited partnership should be divided into two sources.

Individual interpretation of the Director of National Tax Information from 25 July 2018[16]

Licensing revenues should be included in capital gains, while IT revenues should be included in business revenues.

In the case of non-taxable corporate tax partnerships, revenues should be assigned to the source to which they would go in such a company. This means that the distribution of revenues is set at the level of the passenger company. Consequently, if the income obtained ‘under’ of a passenger company is a return on capital gains, that income is also included in the capital gains for the shareholder.

On the basis of the interpretations cited above, it can be seen that the authorities have great discretion in such decisions. After the entry into force of the new rules in practice, tax authorities had doubts about the source of the divestment of their own rights.

Currently, after MF's response to the parliamentary interpelling with 27 June 2018[17], The view is that profits from economic activities include income from the sale of own rights which are not intangible assets.

According to the authorities, such a situation is not included in the list of capital gains. This applies, for example, to IT companies that, together with the software created, transfer all proprietary property rights to this software.

This interpretation has preserved an equal tax situation between industries whose activities include the creation of new technologies and traditional industries dealing with typical production activities.

This would make it particularly difficult to benefit from the R & D relief as the revenue from the sale of R & D results would be included in capital gains, even though in practice it would be the taxpayer's primary activity. Different interpretations in this respect[18] They are to be changed.

According to Article 2(3) Act on 23 October 2018 amending the Personal Income Tax Act, the Corporate Income Tax Act and certain other acts[19], revenue from the rights created by the taxpayer is directly excluded from capital gains.

Income from financial derivatives

Capital gains also include income from financial derivatives. However, the exception is derivative financial instruments to hedge revenues or costs that are not included in capital gains. Revenue from such instruments is included in revenue from other sources (Article 7b(1)(6) point (b) the Corporate Income Tax Act).

It should be recalled that in the case of insurers, banks and other financial institutions, in principle, their income is included in other sources of income. Most of the revenue which according to the Corporate Income Tax Act are classified as capital gains, in fact operating (Article 7b(2) the Corporate Income Tax Act).

An example of revenue from derivatives of financial instruments which are revenues from other sources is given in the personal interpretation of the Director of KIS from 26 April 2018[20].

To other sources, the Authority has included revenue from foreign exchange hedge instruments of specific commodity transactions, which were the main source of income for the applicant. Importantly, none of these hedge transactions were speculative, i.e. was not detached from commodity transactions.

The Authority has confirmed that, of course, the costs associated with derivative financial instruments that hedge the exchange rate of specific commodity transactions are also costs of economic activity.

However, tax authorities also give different interpretations in this respect. That is the position the Authority took in an individual interpretation from 20 March 2018[21] to a company which belonged to an international group of entities mainly involved in the construction industry. Entities made payments in foreign currency.

The applicant was to act as a currency risk manager in the group. To this end, it included derivative transactions with entities in the group. It subsequently also concluded relevant agreements with financial institutions which were subject to the supply or acquisition of currencies.

The company included these transactions solely to cover the group's foreign exchange risks, in particular it did not include speculative transactions.

The Authority considered that, in such a case, the revenue generated by the applicant for trading derivatives should be classified as capital gains. He argued that the revenue to be hedged by derivative financial instruments is achieved by another entity, i.e. companies in the group. Furthermore, the Authority considers that the entity exemption concerning financial institutions does not apply to the applicant.

The objective of the entity exemption was to exclude from the capital gains revenue generated by the core business. However, limiting the exemption to financial institutions means that non-financial institutions, but actually engaged in such activities, remain outside its scope.

Consideration should be given to extending this exemption, although it would be problematic to establish a precise criterion for the use of the exemption.

Revenue from participation in investment funds

Capital gains also include revenue from participation in investment funds and mutual investment institutions as well as revenue from the disposal of these rights (Article 7b(1)(6) point (c) the Corporate Income Tax Act).

In an individual interpretation of 20 September 2018[22] the Authority has confirmed that the proceeds from capital gains include income from both the sale and the redemption of investment certificates in a closed investment fund. On the other hand, the expenditure incurred for the acquisition of these certificates should constitute the cost of obtaining the revenue eligible in the source of the capital gains.

Exchange rate income

Exchange-rate income is not listed in the inventory of capital gains. As a consequence, taxpayers had doubts about the ‘basket’ of revenue including exchange rate differences related to capital gains.

Regarding exchange rate differences in the individual interpretation of 22 June 2018[23] the Authority has taken the view that exchange rate differences share the fate of the revenue to which they are linked. As a result, exchange rate differences arising from capital gains revenue increase capital gains revenue. Similarly, differences in capital gains costs will increase the cost of obtaining capital gains[24].

Revenue from guarantees and guarantees

In an individual interpretation of 20 September 2018[25] the authority has confirmed that the proceeds of the guarantees and guarantees provided should not be included in the capital gains. They are not listed in the closed catalogue under Article 7b the Corporate Income Tax Act Consequently, the proceeds from guarantees and guarantees should be included in the revenue from other sources.

Classification of revenue from participation in personal companies

As has already been emphasised in the previously presented positions of the tax authorities, when assigning revenue to an appropriate source, it is important to bear in mind the rules on passenger companies. The distribution of revenue and costs per source also applies to the revenues and costs incurred by the shareholders of the company (transparent tax company) who are taxable persons.

In an individual interpretation of 25 July 2018[26] the authority has explained that the determination of the source of the specific income should be eligible, i.e. the revenue from capital gains or revenues from other sources must already be made at the level of the company.

If the income obtained by such a company constitutes income from capital gains, its attribution to the shareholder on the basis of Article 5 the Corporate Income Tax Act does not alter his qualifications.

This income also remains for the taxpayer the income from capital gains and increases its revenue from that source (as in the individual interpretation from 15 June 2018[27]).

Breakdown of revenue costs

Due to the distribution of revenue by two sources, also costs should be allocated accordingly. There is no doubt about the allocation of direct revenue costs. On the other hand, in terms of the sharing of costs which are indirectly linked to revenue from both sources, the authorities confirm the use of a ‘revenue key’.

It is based on the distribution of costs in the ratio that revenues from these sources remain in the overall amount of revenue. This means that indirect costs should be divided in proportion to the part in which they relate to obtaining capital gains and other revenues.

In an individual interpretation of 1 June 2018[28] The Authority recalled that if the taxpayer does not obtain income from capital gains and incurs costs from that source, there is no possibility of reducing that revenue from other sources.

The Authority also confirmed that the allocation of costs could be made already at the time of the calculation of advance payments per tax and that the proportion should be calculated for the sum of indirect costs incurred during the accounting period. Consequently, the distribution key shall be adopted for each cost incurred.

However, in an individual interpretation of 20 September 2018[29] The Authority explained that the proportion according to which costs are allocated to sources of revenue is only fixed at the end of the tax year.

In an individual interpretation of 30 April 2018[30] as an example of the cost to be divided into both sources, the Authority indicated interest on a loan for different purposes.

In the situation under examination, the loan was partly used to recapitalisation the companies in the group by increasing their share capital by a cash contribution, and the remaining part of the loan would be used for current needs, e.g. the provision for the payment of advances on corporate income tax.

According to the Authority, in the present situation, appropriate allocation of revenue costs should be made, i.e. interest on costs related to capital gains and other activities.

The Authority explained that the loan would be used for purposes which would result in revenues from both the ‘basic’ activity of the applicant and the proceeds from capital gains.

In the above-mentioned individual interpretation from 20 September 2018 the Authority has confirmed that the allocation of costs should also apply to expenditure on licensing of programmes and information systems, such as the accounting system, the staff and salary records system and the project management system.

In this case, the acquired licences are linked to the principal economic activity as well as, indirectly, remain in connection with the proceeds of capital gains. The costs of acquiring licences should then be calculated in proportion to both revenue sources.

However, in the case of a special purpose loan, according to the position of the Authority presented in the individual interpretation from 16 May 2018[31], interest shall be allocated to the revenue from the source concerned. For example, interest on the loan drawn for the purchase of the shares reduces the return on capital gains.

In an individual interpretation of 16 May 2018[32] The Authority also confirmed that the principles of proportional allocation of indirect costs should not apply to flat-rate revenues.

In an individual interpretation of 28 March 2018[33] The Authority also indicated that the allocation of indirect costs to individual sources of revenue should take place on the basis of properly prepared documents and tax accounts. However, the revenue key only applies if it is not possible to accurately allocate costs to the various sources of revenue.

Principles for calculating income and loss from sources of revenue

Due to breakdown by two sources of revenue from 2018, income is the sum of income generated from capital gains and economic activities. However, in terms of losses, each source is treated separately. This means that the income earned from one source cannot be reduced by the loss obtained from second revenue sources.

For example, in the event of income from economic activity and loss from capital gains, regardless of the amount of the loss incurred, the taxpayer is obliged to pay capital gains tax.

On the other hand, the possibility of deducting the loss from the activity arises only if the taxable person in five the following tax years will also generate an income from capital gains of an appropriate amount.

The above rules shall not apply to losses incurred for tax years preceding the tax year started after 31 December 2017 These losses for previous years may be deducted from total income. Consequently, losses for years 2013-2017 may be deducted, irrespective of their source, under the same conditions as before, i.e.

Within five the following tax years, not more than 50% amount of loss incurred per one the tax year according to the order and proportion chosen by the taxpayer. This is confirmed by individual interpretations issued by tax authorities.

For example, in an individual interpretation from 30 April 2018[34] the Authority has acknowledged that the applicant cannot reduce the income generated from capital gains by the current loss from other sources of revenue. However, it also confirmed that the company has the right to reduce the return on capital gains by the amount of losses from previous years, on the basis and at the level of the rules the Corporate Income Tax Act the so-called next five tax years, but not more than 50% losses from a given tax year (similar to the individual interpretation from 3 September 2018[35]).

________________________________

2 By law of 27 October 2017 amending the Personal Income Tax Act, the Corporate Income Tax Act and the Flat-rate Income Tax Act on certain revenues generated by individuals, Journal of Laws of 2017, item 2175.

3 reference no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.265.2018.1.MO, Legalis.

4 reference no. 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.107.2018.1.BG, Legalis.

5 Similarly in individual interpretations: from 16 August 2018, reference no. 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.276.2018.1.MS, Legalis; of 14 June 2018, reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.160.2018.1.AM, Legalis.

6 So for example in individual interpretations: from 5 July 2017, reference no. 0114-KDIP2-3.4010.93.2017.2.JBB, Legalis; of 20 March 2014, reference no. ITPB3/423-619/13/MK, Legalis; of 24 October 2013, reference no. IPPB3/423-584/13-2/MC and in NSA judgment of 29 January 2016, reference no. II FSK 2587/13, Legalis.

7 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.271.2018.1.SO, Legalis.

8 reference no. 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.185.2018.2.AK, Legalis.

9 reference no. 0111-KDIB2-1.4010.83.2018.1.EN.

10 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-3.4010.137.2018.1, Legalis.

11 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.59.2018.1.SO, Legalis.

12 reference no. IBPB-1-2/4510-470/16/MS, Legalis.

13 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.172.2018.2.AG, Legalis,

14 reference no. 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.124.2018.1.MM, Legalis.

15 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.259.2018.1.AG, Legalis.

16 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.259.2018.1.AG, Legalis.

17 http://orka2.sejm.gov.pl/INT8.nsf/klucz/283B8404/%24FILE/z07428-o1.pdf No DD6.054.9.2018.

18 Among others, individual interpretations: from 10 May 2018, reference no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.136.2018.1.PC, Legalis; of 7 June 2018, reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.143.2018.2. SO, Legalis; of 21 June 2018, reference no. 0111-KDIB2-1.4010.137.2018.1.MJ, Legalis.

19 Journal of Laws of 2018, item 2159.

20 reference no. 0111-KDIB2-1.4010.72.2018.2.BKD, Legalis.

21 reference no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.505.2017.1.BM.

22 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.271.2018.1.SO, Legalis.

23 reference no. 0111-KDIB2-3.4010.104.2018.1.APA, Legalis.

24 Similarly, in an individual interpretation of 5 June 2018, 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.99.2018.1.ANK, Legalis.

25 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.271.2018.1.SO, Legalis.

26 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.259.2018.1.AG, Legalis.

27 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.120.2018.1.BG, Legalis).

28 reference no. 0111-KDIB2-3.4010.62.2018.1.KB, Legalis.

29 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.271.2018.1.SO, Legalis.

30 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.169.2018.1.SO, Legalis.

31 reference no. 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.107.2018.1.BG, Legalis.

32 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-3.4010.89.2018.1.MC, Legalis.

33 reference no. 0111-KDIB1-2.4010.56.2018.1.MS, Legalis.

34 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-3.4010.86.2018.1.MS, Legalis.

35 reference no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.329.2018.1.AM, Legalis.