Obligation to inform tax authorities about tax schemes and the scope of attorney-client privilege

Act of 23 October 2018 amending the Personal Income Tax Act, the Corporate Income Tax Act, the Act - Tax Ordinance and some other laws[1] introduced an obligation for tax authorities to be informed by legal aid providers or tax advice on so-called tax schemes, i.e.

mechanisms to reduce taxation recommended or implemented by those entities. This law implements the Polish national regulations of the EU Council Directive with 25 May 2018 Directive 2018/822/EU[2], to reduce the use of aggressive tax planning by taxpayers in Member States.

The purpose of this publication is to analyse the compliance of the provisions of the Act with 29 August 1997 - Tax Ordinance[3], providing for the obligation to report tax schemes by a lawyer, with the regulations of the Law on Lawyers, concerning the scope of attorney-client privilege, as well as the regulations of the Basic Law.

1. Introduction

Provision Article 86b(1) o.p.

imposes an obligation on the so-called promoter (which may include a lawyer advising the client) to inform the Head of the National Tax Administration (hereinafter:the Head of the KAS) of the tax scheme within the time limit 30 days from the day following the availability of the tax scheme, from the day following the preparation for the implementation of the tax scheme or from the date of implementation first actions relating to the implementation of the tax scheme, whichever is the earlier.

In turn Article 86f(1) o.p. specify the data to be included in the above notification.

This directory includes, among others, the identification data of the data exporter and the user[4], to whom the tax scheme was made available, including information on the company or name, date and place of birth, tax identifier, place of residence and summary of the description of the arrangement constituting the tax scheme.

These are therefore data covered by attorney-client privilege. The above provisions therefore conflict with the fundamental values on which the customer - lawyer relationship is based, i.e. the full trust of the client in the lawyer, especially in the context of confidentiality of the information transmitted.

The specificity of the profession of lawyer, and the need to maintain guarantees allowing the full trust of the client with the lawyer, requires absolute secrecy of the lawyer, which cannot be restricted. What's more, attorney-client privilege is found.

Under Article 6(1-3) Act 26 May 1982 on the barrister[5], forming part of a democratic rule of law (Article 2 Constitution of Poland[6]). The above provisions may therefore conflict both with Article 6(1-3) Laws on Lawyers, as well as Article 2 Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

1. Obligation to inform tax authorities of tax schemes in light Article 86b and Article 86f Tax Ordinance

Provision Article 86b(1) o.p.

puts on the promoter[7] obligation to provide the Head of KAS with information on the tax scheme within the time limit 30 days from the day following the availability of the tax scheme, from the day following the preparation for the implementation of the tax scheme or from the date of implementation first actions relating to the implementation of the tax scheme, whichever is the earlier.

Regulation Article 86b(2) o.p. provides that the promoter informs the recipient in writing of the NSP[8] that tax scheme, including confirmation of the NSP's broadcast, as soon as it has been received. According to Article 86b(3) o.p.

where within the period referred to Under section 1, the tax scheme does not yet have an NSP, the promoter informs the recipient in writing and transmits the data referred to under Article 86f the tax scheme. By sound Article 86b(4)(1)(2) o.p.

where the promoter provides information on a tax scheme other than a standardised tax scheme[9] infringes the obligation to maintain legally protected professional secrecy and the promoter has not been released by the beneficiary from its obligation to maintain it in this respect, the promoter shall immediately inform the beneficiary in writing within the time limit in question.

Under Article 86b(1) o.p., the obligation to transfer the tax scheme to the Head of the KAS and transmit the data referred to under Article 86f(1) o.p.10, concerning the tax scheme. Provision Article 86b(5) o.p. provides that in the situation in question under Article 86b(4) o.p.

when more than one the promoter is obliged to provide information on the tax scheme, the promoter indicated in that provision, at the same time as the user is informed, in writing, of other known entities obliged to provide information on the tax scheme, that he will not provide information on the tax scheme to the Head of the KAS.

Regulation Article 86b(6) o.p. provides that the promoter, within the time limit 30 the date on which it informed the beneficiary or other entities of the obligation to provide information on the tax scheme, it shall inform the Head of KAS of the obligation to transfer the tax scheme to the Head of KAS, indicating the date on which the tax scheme was made available or the implementation of the tax scheme and the number of entities it informed on the basis of the Article 86b(4) or (5) according to Article 86b(7o).p. does not infringe the obligation to maintain legally protected professional secrecy:

• 1) the provision of information on the tax scheme where the transferor has been exempted from the obligation to maintain it;
• 2) providing information on the standardised tax scheme;
• 3) sending the information in question to the Head of KAS under Article 86b(6) o.p.

The above regulation is functionally related to 1 January 2019 recipe Article 6(4) The barrister's Act, which provides that the obligation of professional secrecy does not apply to information:

• 1) made available under anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules,
• 2) transferred under the provisions of Chapter 11a of Chapter III.

• to the extent specified by those provisions. Regulation Article 6(4)(2) The law of attorney should, in principle, be seen as lex specialis in relation to the provision Article 6(1)(2)(3) The law on attorneys. Considerations require that this restriction of attorney-client privilege is permitted under regulation Article 2 The Constitution of Poland and whether it leads to internal contradictions within Article 6 The law on attorneys. Provision Article 6ust. 1 The law on the bar is extremely clear, stating that the attorney is obliged to keep secret everything he has learned in connection with the provision of legal assistance. Thus, even the fact of establishing a relationship with the customer, as well as the circumstances of establishing this relationship, is covered by the legal secrecy. Similarly, the rule is unambiguous Article 6(3) The law on the barrister, according to which a lawyer cannot be exempted from the obligation of professional secrecy as to the facts which he has learned by providing legal assistance or conducting a case. Therefore, if a lawyer has an absolute obligation to keep a secret of everything he has learned in connection with the provision of legal assistance, the introduction of exceptions to this principle would require a prior change of content Article 6. section 3 the abovementioned Act, if such treatment would be in accordance with the Constitution of Poland. It follows, therefore, that a client cannot exempt a lawyer from the obligation of secrecy, and even if a client exempts a lawyer from the obligation of attorney-client privilege, such exemption is ex lege ineffective and has no legal effect on the ground Article 6ust. 3 The law on attorneys. Not all exclusion of the application of the iuris cogentis standard may be considered an exemption on the lex specialis derogatliga principle. There are such contradictions which, under the appearance of specific regulations, distort general regulation, especially of an absolute nature and have its foundations in the most important regulations of the basic law. An example of this would be the case of the defendant's defence for a money laundering crime (Article 299 Act on 6 June 1997 - Criminal Code[11]), when with one of the parties to the lawyer acting as a defender in the criminal trial have an absolute obligation to keep secret everything he has learned about the provision of legal assistance[12], and second pages by sound Article 6(4)(1) The law on attorneys on information made available on the basis of anti-money laundering and anti-terror financing rules does not apply. The above regulations are therefore incompatible and cannot be concealed under the appearance of applying a general conflict rule, which would in this case lead to constitutional contraleg effects.

The scope of the tax scheme information itself has been defined under Article 86f(1) o.p. very widely and covers both the subject-matter and the subject-matter which are covered by attorney-client privilege.

It is not only the fact that the identification of the client to the Head of the KAS is a breach of attorney-client privilege, but it is also a breach of disclosure of information covered by the lawyer service, even if only this information is disclosed. A recipe. 86f section 1 point 2 o.p.

states that the tax scheme information also contains the legal basis for the transmission of information on tax schemes, together with an indication of the grounds for considering the tax scheme in question, including an indication of the exploratory characteristics and the role of the contributor.

Promoter or supporter under Article 86f(1)(3) They are also required to indicate whether the transfer of information on the tax scheme concerns a standardised tax scheme or a cross-border tax scheme.

And point 4 the above-mentioned provision obliges the promoter to include in the report information on the description of the arrangement constituting the tax scheme, the name of the arrangement, if any, a description of the economic activities to which the tax scheme applies, without disclosing data covered by commercial, industrial, professional or production secrets.

On the other hand, point 5 the above-mentioned provision imposes an obligation on the notifier exhaustive a description of the arrangement constituting the tax scheme, together with an indication of the value of the items of those activities, the assumptions of the arrangement, the activities carried out within the framework of the arrangement and their chronology and the relationship between related parties.

In case of Article 86f(1)(6) o.p. promoter or supporter shall indicate the purpose of the tax scheme. The description of the tax scheme is to include information on the provisions of tax law which, according to the information exporter, apply to the tax scheme[13].

The promoter or ancillary is also required to indicate the estimated value of the tax benefit or the approximate value of the deferred tax assets if they occur and are known to the transferor or reasonably estimated by him[14].

In addition, the promoter or supporter shall indicate the activities which led to the transmission of the tax scheme, together with an indication of the date on which it was or will be carried out first action to implement this scheme[15].

The promoter or assistor shall be obliged to indicate the stage at which, according to the information exporter's knowledge, the tax scheme, in particular the dates of its release or implementation or the date of the arrangement[16]. Provision Article 86f(1)(11) o.p.

obliges to indicate known to the notifier the identification data in question Under point 1, for those participating in, or likely to be affected by, a tax scheme, and the countries and territories in which those entities are resident, established, managed or affected.

According to the content Article 86f(2) s.p., if promoter or promoter[17] is obliged to maintain a legally protected professional secrecy and has not been waived by the beneficiary, the information on the tax scheme, which is a standardised tax scheme, does not contain the identification of the beneficiary to whom the tax scheme has been made available and the identification data referred to Under point 1 that provision, for participating parties who are to participate in a tax scheme or who may be affected by a tax scheme, and the countries and territories in which those entities are domiciled, established, managed or whose scheme may concern and indicate other known entities obliged to provide information on the tax scheme, if any.

By virtue of the provisions Article 86f(4) o.p.

within the time limit 30 the days following the end of the quarter, the promoter or ancillary shall provide the Head of the KAS with information containing the details of the recipient, specified Under section 1 points 1 and 9 and 11, to whom he made the tax scheme standardised during this quarter, indicating the NSP.

Where the transmission of the data referred to in the sentence first, breach of the obligation to maintain a legally protected professional secrecy, the obligation to transmit them includes the data of the beneficiary or the data of the person identifying the participant identified Under section 1 point 11, who has not released the promoter or assister from the obligation of secrecy in this respect.

Thus, in the case of a standardized tax scheme (and this is the vast majority of tax schemes), the attorney, acting on the basis of the regulations under consideration as the so-called promoter, is obliged to provide a number of data directly covered by attorney-client privilege, but without any data identifying the client.

Thus, the lawyer shall provide the Head of KAS with a set of information relating to the legal assistance provided by him under the Law on Legal Aid in question, but shall not provide information on the subject-matter of his advice.

Indisputably, this information, regardless of the possibility of being used by other entities, is covered by attorney-client privilege and its provision is incompatible with the content Article 6(1-3) The law on attorneys.

3. Legal secrecy

The basic rule of secrecy is Article 6 The law on attorneys. In accordance with the provisions Article 6(1) The barrister's bill, the attorney is obliged to keep secret everything he has learned about the provision of legal assistance. This provision constitutes a meritum of attorney-client privilege. In turn, a recipe.

6 section 2 The law on barrister provides that the obligation mentioned Under section 1 cannot be limited in time. According to Article 6(3) The law on the barrister, the lawyer, may not be exempted from the obligation of professional secrecy as to the facts which he has learned by providing legal assistance or handling a case.

A correct interpretation of the law must not ignore values and non-legal standards, which therefore, when applying the law, shape the functioning of the legislation.[18]. Unquestionable such non-legal standards are those contained in the Code of Professional Ethics of Lawyers[19].

Under section 19 section 1 the Code of Bar Association Ethics is clarified very widely the scope of this bar secret, i.e. the lawyer is obliged to keep secret and to prevent disclosure or misuse of anything he has learned in connection with the performance of his professional duties.

Provision section 19 section 2 The bar code of ethics specifies that the bar secret also applies to materials collected in the bar act.

On the other hand, section 19 section 3 The bar code of ethics provides that all messages, notes and documents relating to the case, obtained from the client and other persons, regardless of where they are, are covered by the secrecy.

Moreover, according to the content section 19 section 4 a code of barrister's ethics, the lawyer shall oblige his colleagues and staff and any person employed by him during his professional activity to comply with the obligation of professional secrecy.

On the other hand, according to the wording section 19ust., seventh paragraph (7) The bar code of ethics is unlimited in time.

In accordance with the position of the Supreme Bar Council expressed in the resolution of 18 June 1994[20] barristers should regard the obligation of professional confidentiality as binding regardless of the position and will of the procedural bodies[21].

Invariable from above 25 years in this regard, the position of the Supreme Bar Council underlines the absolute and absolute nature of attorney-client privilege and, therefore, the possible breach of that secrecy, even if it is exempted from the obligation of the court to maintain it, may be the basis for the disciplinary liability of the lawyer.

The bar secret should also be seen – and in present times above all – in the constitutional dimension of the system. The bar secret is part of the democratic rule of law, and thus finds its basis under Article 2 Constitution of the Republic of Poland. In this spirit, common courts have repeatedly spoken.

For example, the Court of Appeal in Szczecin in the order with 29 October 2013[22] He pointed out that "the protection of attorney-client privilege is one of the guarantees of the proper pursuit of the profession of attorney, as a profession of public trust, a guarantee whose purpose is not to protect the comfort of the lawyer, but to protect the trust which the Mandarin gave him.

Hence, proper appreciation of the great importance of professional secrecy and its place in the organisation of social life is an integral part of the entire legal protection system and a sine qua non of the proper functioning of the justice system in a democratic legal state (Article 2 The Constitution of the Republic of Poland) and for this reason this respect of this secret is in the public interest." The same position was also expressed, among others, by the Szczecin District Court in its decision with 15 June 2018[23].

Legal secrecy is seen in legal literature as superior value, with priority in the event of conflicts with other values[24]. This means that the provisions of the Law on Advocates should take precedence in the event of a collision with other equivalent legal acts.

As Mr Cardas points out, ‘a lawyer's secret covering all information and data obtained in connection with the pursuit of the profession of lawyer is intended to protect social trust in this profession and mutual trust between the lawyer and the persons entrusted with the information.

It therefore serves both public purposes (the protection of public confidence in the profession of lawyer and the effective performance of barristers in the public interest) and private purposes, the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of persons benefiting from the assistance of representatives of these professions"[25].

It should also be indicated that one from the foundations of the states of law, and especially those permanently rooted in the Western culture of law is the absolute character of attorney-client privilege, which is an absolute good, or which cannot be excluded by the authorities of the state, but only by the client of a lawyer[26].For example, in the USA, France, England, Norway, Germany and Austria[27].

Lawyer privilege is an integral part of the provision of legal assistance and is inextricably linked to it.

A lack of respect for attorney-client privilege would mean that a customer, not trusting his attorney or defender with regard to the potential disclosure of the information given to him, would probably never give that information to him or to him in distorted form, counting on the disclosure of that information to the State authorities.

Such a situation would lead to a distortion of the idea of a professional attorney (defendant) who at any time would have to face the threat of criminal liability of disclosing the information provided by the client. A lawyer's client would also have to face the same possibility.

The impact of such a situation on the relationship between the lawyer and the client and the level of trust between them is obvious and does not require comment.

Polish legislation contains a number of regulations relating to attorney-client privilege contained in various legal acts of the statutory rank, but never the regulations of the law on attorney-client privilege contained restrictions on the scope of attorney-client privilege due to administrative regulations, including tax regulations.

This was only happening on the day 1 January 2019, when the rule began to apply Article 6(4)(2) The law on attorneys. According to its content, the obligation of professional secrecy does not apply to information transmitted under Chapter 11a of Title III of the General Tax Code within the scope of those provisions.

By passing on the above-mentioned principle of tax reporting regulation, limiting attorney-client privilege will, from the outset, cause the client to doubt whether the lawyer is acting in the client's interest in the words "There can be no trust where there is no certainty of keeping secrets"[28].

The client, fearing the lawyer's non-compliance with attorney-client privilege, will hide information from the lawyer, which will result in the loss of the nature of this relationship based on trust and will undoubtedly amount to forcing the lawyer's client to act to their own detriment and suffer harm.

This will also mean depriving taxpayers of real legal assistance in areas other than procedural replacement.

1. The nature of attorney-client privilege in the context of information obligations with the Head of the KAS

The new regulations, introducing not only the possibility of exempting a lawyer from attorney-client privilege, but the legal obligation to inform his clients, including information to the Head of the KAS about the legal services provided to them, result in the practical elimination of attorney-client privilege in the field of tax law, excluding the activities of procedural replacement.

Lawmakers' procedures have the price of only the apparent protection of attorney-client privilege in the context of the obligation to report tax structures, in fact they eliminate this secret, bringing the client – the lawyer to a normal civil-law relationship[29].

The situation in which a lawyer is legally obliged to inform state authorities of the scope of tax advisory services provided to his clients is incompatible with the principle of a democratic rule of law (Article 2 Constitution of the Republic of Poland).

This is a situation that strikes the legal foundations of every democratic rule of law. The regulations analysed should be read in conjunction with administrative and carno-carb sanctions for non-compliance with the obligations arising from the abovementioned regulations.

Article 6(4)(2) The law on attorneys leads to a situation where taxpayers cease to benefit from legal assistance provided by professional agents or act in a way that is detrimental to themselves or less favourable than the most favourable possible, fearing that the lawyer will disclose the information he is entrusted with, including the intention of the taxpayer to make certain decisions on the tax structure.

The intention of the taxpayer may be of significant importance in the context of the risk of applying the general anti-tax avoidance clause. Regulations Article 119a-Article 119zf They refer to the intention of the taxpayer (the intended purpose) to take a specific action.

Both judicial jurisprudence and legal literature emphasise the importance of attorney-client privilege as a guarantee of other rights, which are enshrined in the basic law.

For example, in the decision with 8 June 2005 The District Court in Warsaw stressed that "No one will be able to benefit from such assistance in a full manner when he cannot provide his lawyer with any information relating to the matter for fear of disclosure of that information, and in the event of excessive dismissal of lawyers by courts from the obligation of attorney-client privilege, everyone will be forced not to provide the lawyer with all the information in the case in question for fear that the information will be subsequently made available by the lawyer to law enforcement authorities after obtaining the court's consent"[30].

Taking into account the regulations under consideration, in conjunction with the content Article 6ust. 4 point 2 It must be stated that the legislator's wish was to introduce lex specialis rules in the abovementioned provision in relation to earlier provisions. Article 6 Laws on the Bar, i.e. section 1-3.

However, in the above case, there is a special situation, as this is first in the history of Polish tax legislation, the case of unconditional exclusion of attorney-client privilege, without the need for prior order of the court in this respect, which de facto and de jure eliminates the obligation of attorney-client privilege in this area.

In this case, there is a statutory order for the disclosure of information covered by barrister's secrecy in the present sense, with the secrecy of the subject party, which only makes it difficult and does not prevent the authorities from establishing the identity of the client of the lawyer[31].

Agreeing this regulation with a requirement arising directly from Article 6(1) Laws on barrister and regulations section 19 The bar code of ethics, it's impossible.

Provision Article 6(4)(2) The law on barrister constitutes a specific legal curiosium, since even in criminal proceedings, the release of a lawyer from attorney-client privilege (but not a defense) requires prior agreement of the court in this respect.

At the same time, the administrative law introduces regulations which are a legal order for breach of attorney-client privilege, and under the appearance of a regulation specific to the provisions Article 6(1-3) Laws on barrister eliminate attorney-client privilege In one of the most complex areas of Polish law with and so strongly outlined sovereign role of the state and a clear lack of equivalence between the taxpayer and the state.

Disorder of constitutional principle of proportionality (Article 31(3) The Constitution of the Republic of Poland) is another of the allegations against the regulations under consideration.

Constitutional Court in judgment 26 January 1993[32] He stressed that the restrictions on constitutional freedoms and laws “must take into account the need to balance every time the legal status of the restricted and the legal status of the right, whether the principle is a legitimate restriction.

Failure to comply with the proportionality required in this case or to declare that the restriction adopted is unduly excessive may result in the inconstitutionality of the regulation concerned.’ In the case of attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to recognise action respecting the principle of proportionality in the constitutional dimension of unconditional elimination of attorney-client privilege in the area of substantive tax law[33].

Moreover, the retroactivity of the abovementioned regulations, which are to apply before the date of Parliament's adoption, is a violation of the fundamental standards of the rule of law and a manifest breach of disposition Article 2 ConstitutionRP.

Reporting of cross-border schedules from 25 June 2018.and national schedules 1 November 2018, where the provisions underlying these reporting obligations have entered into force 1 January 2019 is an unacceptable derogation from the fundamental principle of lex retronon agit.

In conclusion, the provisions of the Law imposing, inter alia, the obligation on lawyers to report on their clients in connection with the provision of legal assistance in the area of tax law, excluding acts of representation in proceedings, constitute a direct violation of the principle of a democratic rule of law (Article 2 The Constitution of the Republic of Poland) and the principle of proportionality (Article 31(3) Constitution of the Republic of Poland).

These regulations in conjunction with Article 6ust. 4 point 2 The barrister's laws prejudge an unprecedented breach of attorney-client privilege in the area of legal assistance provided in the field of tax law.

Under the appearance of specific regulations a provision was introduced (Article 6(4pkt), point two, of the Bar Act), which distorts the sense of attorney-client privilege as a legal and systemic institution. This regulation strikes the foundation of a customer- attorney relationship, which will be a fiction without an element of trust.

The transmission of any information covered by attorney-client privilege to the state authorities without prior decision of the court in this respect is a solution unknown in the legal systems of Western European states, which deviates significantly from the standards of the democratic rule of law, but well known in the states of the former Soviet bloc.

As a result of the regulations introduced, the client will be afraid of his lawyer, seeing in him the threat of disclosing confidential information concerning his financial situation and the business activities undertaken, rather than a trustee guarding in his majesty the right of access to that information.

On the basis of the analysis carried out, it has been proven that the o.p. provisions imposing on lawyers an obligation to inform tax authorities about the advisory services provided to their clients are incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and constitute a breach of attorney-client privilege.

Moreover, it has been shown that regulation Article 6(4)(2) The Bar Association Act leads to internal contradictions within Article 6 that law and is incompatible with other provisions of that provision, despite the apparent nature of the provision specific to the provisions Article 6(1-3) The law on attorneys.

______________________________________________________________

17 According to Article 86a(1)(18) o.p., the term ‘supporter’ shall mean a natural person, a legal person or an organisational entity without legal personality, in particular an auditor, a notary, a person providing accounting, accounting, accounting or financial director services, a bank or other financial institution, and a staff member who, under the general care required in the activities carried out, has undertaken, directly or through other persons, assistance or advice to develop, market, organise, make available to implement or supervise the implementation of the arrangement.

18 T. Stawecki, P. Winczorek, Admission to Law Firm, Warsaw 2002, p. 35 and n.

19 Resolution of the Supreme Bar Council of 10 October 1998, No 2/XVIII/98 – Collection of Principles of Bar Ethics and Professional Dignity (Code of Bar Ethics),i.e.: notice of the Bureau of the Chief Bar Council of 27 February 2018 on the publication of a uniform text of the Legal Ethics and Dignity Principles (Advocacy Code), publ.: file:///C:/Users/Rafal%20Return/Downloads/Code%20Ethics%20Advocacy.pdf.

20 Resolution of the Supreme Bar Council of 18 June 1994, No 1/VIII/94.

21 J. Agacka-Indecka, Professional secrecy of the lawyer – significant judicial decisions (part II), “Palestra” 2005, No 9-10, p. 67.

22 Order of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin with 29 October 2013 (reference no. II AKz 330/13).

23 Order of the Szczecin District Court of 15 June 2018 (reference no. IV Kz 694/18).

24 Mr Cardas, Constitutional aspects of disputes over barrister's secret, “Palestra Świętokrzyska” 2014, No 29-30, p. 9.

25 — Ibid., p. 16.

26 J. Agacka-Indecka, Professional Secret of the Lawyer... op. cit., p. 69.

27 Z. Kwiatkowski, Prohibitions of evidence in criminal trial, Kraków 2005, p. 212 and n.

28 see point 2.3 European Union Code of Ethics, ‘Palestra’ 2008, No 5-6, p. 197.

29 Where the client does not release the lawyer from attorney-client privilege, the lawyer shall inform the client in writing of the obligation to inform the Head of KAS of the tax scheme proposed or implemented, while informing the Head of KAS that he has informed the client of the obligation and indicating what the tax scheme relates to.

30 Order of the District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw, Division VIII Criminal 8 June 2005, (reference no. VIII Kp 2163/05).

31 Tax authorities have access to invoices issued by a lawyer because invoices are not covered by attorney-client privilege, but only by the scope of the services the invoices document. Thus, they may know the identity of the clients of the lawyer for whom he has issued the invoices in the last period and thus combine the activities they undertake with the information provided by the lawyer to the Head of the KAS by establishing which client of the lawyer concerned the tax scheme.

32 Judgment of the Constitutional Court 26 January 1993, (reference no. U 10/92).

33 i.e. in the area of legal assistance provided in the field of tax law, excluding the procedural replacement.