Tax interpretations and jurisprudence on the scope of the increased cost of obtaining revenue from creative activities

In accordance with the current 1 October 2018 sound Article 22(9b) Act on 26 July 1991 on personal income tax 1 (Further: u.p.d.o.f.), revenue costs 50% used 2 to revenue from: 1) creative activities in the fields of architecture, interior architecture, landscape architecture, construction engineering, urban planning, literature, art, industrial design, music, photography, audio and audiovisual production, computer programs, computer games, theatre, costume design, stage design, directing, choreography, artistic soldering, folk art and journalism, 2) artistic activities in the fields of acting, stage, dance and circus art and conducting, vocals and instrumentalism, 3) audiovisual and audiovisual production, 4) public activities, 5) museum activities in the field of exhibition, scientific, popularizing, educational and publishing, 6) maintenance activities, 7) the right to develop another person's work in the form of translation, 8) R & D, scientific, scientific and educational, research, research and teaching activities in the university. The problem with the use of increased costs is the lack of statutory definitions or scope of activities which entitle them to apply (except for research and development).

1. Negative interpretations

In the new state of the law, since 1 January 2018, on the possibility to apply increased revenue costs on the basis of Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. most of these are negative interpretations, denying payers the possibility of applying such increased costs for creative activities.

So decided the Director of KIS, among others, in an individual interpretation from 23 February 2018 3 , concerning a company operating in the IT industry.

The company employs IT specialists on the basis of employment contracts, who create works as defined by the Act with 4 February 1994 about copyright and related rights 4 (hereinafter: u.p.a.), which are then transferred to the employer.

The company therefore wanted to introduce a record which would clearly specify the percentage of remuneration due to the employee as a fee for creative work.

In addition, the company would keep a record of the works (repository) in which employees would register their creative activities and works which would be created in the course of performing these creative activities in a given month and their location.

The company asked whether it could apply 50% the cost of obtaining revenue for the part of the remuneration which constitutes the fee for the creation of the work.

The Director of KIS found the position of the company incorrect.

According to the Authority, application 50% the cost of obtaining revenue is only possible if the employer separates the part of the remuneration due to the disposition or exercise of the property rights of the employees for the works created by them (honorarium) from the remaining remuneration for the duties performed, which are not of a creative nature, but by the separation of the fee cannot be considered as a percentage.

Only a clear determination of the value of the fee in a specific amount for the work actually carried out will it be possible to apply to such calculated value part of the cost of obtaining revenue in the amount specified under Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f.

A similar position was taken by the Director of KIS in an individual interpretation with 20 February 2018 5 . The performance, on the basis of the employment relationship, of activities protected by both copyright and non-copyright law requires documentation of the value of the remuneration of the use of copyright.

Only the clear distinction and documenting of works – copyrighted works – and the remuneration paid in this respect gives rise to application 50% the cost of obtaining revenue. It is essential that the creator achieves income directly linked to the exercise of certain copyrights or related rights or the provision of such rights.

In practice, this meant that, according to the Director of KIS, it is necessary to value copyright rights for each created work and to pay remuneration for this work in variable value, depending on the value of copyright rights for each work.

The Authority therefore excludes the possibility of using increased revenue costs for workers with creative activities.

There is no other possibility in the business of new technologies, computer programs or IT industry to pay employees whose essence of the work is creative activity, a fee other than a lump sum set by the amount or percentage.

2. Judgment

The rulings of the administrative courts following the amendment are not uniform, but in most cases they are more advantageous to taxpayers and payers than the position of tax authorities. The following judgments: WSA in Olsztyn, WSA in Warsaw, WSA in Poznań and WSA in Gdańsk confirm the position of tax authorities.

Judgment

The payer should calculate and collect an advance on the basis of the income actually earned in a given month rather than the income expected, hypothetical, based on a percentage of the remuneration divided into ‘author’ and ‘ordinary’ 6 .

Judgment

The employer cannot determine in the employment contract what percentage of the working time the worker will spend on creative work that entitles him to benefit from 50% the cost of obtaining income and the percentage of the remuneration according to this criterion, it is necessary to apply a time factor actually devoted to such work.

Provision Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. is a lex specialis in relation to the general cost-setting principle of obtaining revenue from the employment relationship indicated under Article 22(2) u.p.d.o.f.

Therefore, only if it is clearly established that the revenue is covered by copyright will it be possible to apply increased revenue costs. In any other case, the determined costs should be used under Article 22(2) u.p.d.o.f. 7 .

Judgment

The working time specified in the employment contract is not an indication of the value of the income to which they are entitled 50% revenue costs. It is important that the work was actually created, which should be proven, and that the employer paid specific value for the acquisition of the work. The fee is not to apply only to working time devoted to creative work, and is to be paid for the use by the employer of the copyright of the employee[8].

Judgment

Subject to application to employment relationship income (or part thereof) 50% the cost of obtaining revenue is:

• 1) arising as a result of works of a creative nature within the meaning of Article 1(1) u.p.a. and receiving remuneration for the resulting work;
• 2) a regulation by the creator of property rights to the work or the author of a license to use it by the employer;
• 3) where remuneration is obtained in the framework of an employment relationship, the employer’s contract should result in what part of the remuneration is the author’s remuneration for exercising those rights[9].

In turn decisions of the WSA in Rzeszów (judgment of 7 August 2018, reference no. I SA/Rz 465/18, Legalis), WSA in Gliwice (judgment of 15 April 2019, reference no. I SA/Gl 1088/18, Legalis) and WSA in Warsaw (judgment from 11 October 2018, reference no. III SA/Wa 3775/17, Legalis), WSA in Lublin (judgment of 28 August 2019, reference no.

I SA/Lu 376/19, Legalis), WSA in Wrocław (judgment from 9 January 2020, reference no. I SA/Wr 654/19, Legalis) and WSA in Poznań (judgment of 4 December 2019, reference no.

I SA/Po 669/19, Legalis) repeals interpretations which are unfavourable to taxpayers and payers and reduces to varying degrees the number of conditions of entitlement to apply 50% the cost of obtaining revenue.

Judgment

No use is possible Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. in a situation where a contract of employment does not provide for a distinction of remuneration in part related to the performance of labour obligations and part related to the exercise of copyright – because u.p.d.o.f.

does not provide for the possibility to estimate the amount of work so-called creative in the total amount of work of a given employee, the creator.

Unacceptable is also the situation in which the employment contract allocated a percentage of the working time allocated to the creative activity and the working time remained, as this did not allow to determine the amount of the fee.

None of the provisions require that the increased cost of obtaining the revenue in question be applied under Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f., the separation of part of this salary, which is related to creative activity and is a fee for the decree by the author of property rights, took place in the employment contract.

It is important that, in a clear manner, other conditions can be clearly identified.[10].

Judgment

The interpretation body has misinterpreted Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. by accepting that by separating the fee from the total value of the salary, it is not possible to recognise the situation in which the employer in the contract of employment or in another document will indicate the method of calculating the copyright fee (...).

Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. does not specify the requirements for determining the copyright remuneration.

In this respect, the legislator has left freedom for the parties to the employment relationship, which is entirely justified by the subject matter of the creative work, their outcome, the time of performance of the work, and the organisation of the internal employer[11].

Judgment

If the contract of employment provides for the separation from the remuneration of the employee of the part relating to the exercise of copyright and appropriate documentation is carried out in this respect, increased income costs may be applied to the revenue from that source, according to the Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. Possible use 50% the cost of obtaining revenue in relation to the fee of the author's worker producing works and transferring the copyright to the work for the employer, if the working time devoted to the production of the work is only an ancillary criterion for determining the amount of the fee, and the condition for its payment is the creation of a specific work[12].

A more liberal position was presented by the WSA in Lublin in a judgment with 28 August 2019 13 , according to which none of the provisions of u.p.d.o.f. nor the provisions of u.p.a. require that for the application of the increased cost of obtaining the revenue in question under Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f., it was necessary to separate the amount in the employment contract. It is important that they can be clearly and precisely identified. Similarly, the WSA in Wrocław stated in the judgment of 9 January 2020

Judgment

Since the tax authorities did not dispute the creation of works or the transfer of works to their employer, or the receipt of fees (related to those works), the method of calculating the royalties cannot be disputed simply because it is not reflected in the amount in the employment contract and the rules of its determination do not have written expression (in the absence of a reservation in the written form of those acts).

The original remuneration was determined as a percentage of the remuneration of a particular contract of employment (used in this case as a base amount) corresponding to the percentage of the time spent on creative work in relation to working time in general.

There is no legal or rational basis to question such calculation from a perspective Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. 14 .

In the judgment of 4 December 2019) The WSA in Poznań stated 15 , that the recipe Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. does not specify the requirements for determining the copyright remuneration. The legislator left the parties to the employment relationship free in this respect.

According to the above rulings, the administrative courts have still not reached a uniform position on the applicability 50% the cost of obtaining revenue. Even the rulings of the same court (WSA in Warsaw) differ considerably in the scope of decisions. It will be necessary to wait for the final resolution of this issue to take place when the cases relating to the new state of the law are heard by the NSA.

3. Relief by tax authorities

Under the influence of the jurisprudence of the administrative courts, the tax authorities eased their position as regards the possibility for the payer to apply the cost of obtaining revenue of 50% revenue obtained. The best example will be the individual interpretation of the Director of KIS from 10 June 2019, in which the applicant’s position as to the possibility for the payer to apply the cost of obtaining revenue of 50% the obtained revenue to a flat-rate royalty was considered correct (this position was indicated in the publication of the book from 2018, despite lack of positive decisions).

Individual interpretation of the Director of KIS from 10 June 2019 16

The fact that the taxable person has exercised copyright should be documented, as the costs in question must be applied under Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. is that there should be a track within the meaning of u.p.a., the creator granted a license to use the work in question, or that there should be a decree of property rights to the work created. The mere performance of creative work does not automatically mean the creation of a work and the transition of rights from it to an employer.

The increased revenue costs can therefore be used if the remuneration for the transfer of copyright has been paid. The content of the employment contract (or other document) should show that the obligations of the employment relationship also include creative activity and the separate amount represents a fee for the transfer of copyright to the work. It is therefore necessary to distinguish precisely the remuneration associated with the transfer or exercise of copyright by the employee.

In conclusion, in order to be able to apply the increased cost of obtaining revenue for the remuneration of the copyright Regulation, the following conditions must be met:

• 1) the work performed by the employee is the subject of copyright, and therefore meets the conditions of the work specified in u.p.a.,
• 2) the worker is a creator within the meaning of that law and the income obtained by the worker is the result of the exercise by the creator of those rights or the exercise of those rights,
• 3) the legal relationship between the employee and the employer provides for payment of the remuneration due to the employee for the use of copyright and appropriate documentation is kept in this respect, e.g. detailed records of the copyright transferred, and
• 4) revenue must be obtained from those activities under Article 22(9b) u.p.d.o.f.

This means softening the position of the tax authorities, which had previously denied the right to apply in such cases 50% the cost of obtaining revenue. However, due to divergent case-law and few positive individual interpretations, it is recommended to use increased revenue costs for highly prudent employment contracts.

The situation is different with work contracts, where the position of tax authorities is uniform. In an individual interpretation of 26 April 2018 Director KIS indicated 17 , that, since the persons with whom the applicant has concluded works contracts are creators, their works are works within the meaning of u.p.a.

and the remuneration for works contracts constitutes a full remuneration for the transfer of property rights, the applicant may apply to contractors of works contracts 50% revenue costs according to Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f.

Similarly in an individual interpretation of 20 April 2018 Director KIS recognized 18 , that since the applicant has performed the work on the basis of a contract which clearly indicates the amount of remuneration for the creation of the work, he is therefore entitled to apply the increased revenue costs.

4. General interpretation of the Minister of Finance

Due to differences in individual interpretations and the lack of a uniform position of the administrative courts, the MF issued a general interpretation on application 50% This appropriation is intended to cover the following expenditure:[19].

The interpretation does not constitute a breakthrough in this respect, but rather a summary of the current position of the tax authorities, taking into account the case law of the administrative courts.

However, it is worth noting that this first a coherent application concept 50% This appropriation is intended to cover the following expenditure: first, tax authorities are very unfavourable to taxpayers, and they are mitigated by judicial decisions.

In a decisive part, this interpretation coincides with the position presented in earlier editions of the book. The main issues that have been clarified in the general interpretation of the MF are discussed below.

1. 1. Precise definition of the conditions necessary for the treatment and application of part of the remuneration 50% revenue costs

These are the following conditions:

• 1) the creation of a work relationship of a work governed by copyright;
• 2) to have objective evidence that the worker has created the copyright work. A statement by the employer and the employee that the work has been done may be evidence if it determines which work was created;
• 3) a clear separation of the author's fee from other components of the employer's salary;
• 4) The subject of copyright is only the creative activity which leads to the creation of a copyrighted work. The creative activity itself cannot be the subject of copyright and the revenue obtained from it does not apply Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f.;

1. basic conditions for application 50% the cost of obtaining revenue in the employment relationship is that the subject matter of the employment contract is the creation of a work within the meaning of the provisions of u.p.a., i.e. ordered and expected by the employer, the original individual product;
2. in the case of an employee work, it is necessary for the employer to accept the work, as this means a statutory (or contractual) copyright regulation for the employer.
3. 2. Indication of different treatment of copyright to a computer program

Indicated as – separate from Article 12(1) u.p.a. – Regulation contained under Article 74(3) u.p.a., according to which the rights of property to the computer program created by the employee as a result of the performance of duties from the employment relationship are conferred on the employer, unless the contract provides otherwise.

On the basis of this provision, the developer's employer acquires copyright in its entirety as soon as the programme is established. This is the employer's original acquisition of copyright. Thus, the creator of the computer program does not exercise or dispose of copyright unless otherwise provided in the contract.

4.3. Clarification when the fee may be paid

The general interpretation finally agreed that payment of the fee or part of the fee for a given work may take place before the work is created (e.g. on the date of signing the contract).

As indicated in the wording of the interpretation: ‘The rules on the payment of these claims may specify in detail the contract of employment, the remuneration rules and other internal regulations, or the civil law contract (contract) under which the work is created.

If, on the basis of the above-mentioned rules, claims are paid before the work is created (when it is created), the employer or other paying agent is entitled to apply to a specific part of the fee due. 50% revenue costs.

Therefore, there are no obstacles to these costs being taken into account by the employer or other entity when paying such remuneration for the month in which the employee or contractor of the civil contract (contract) resides on leave or on sick leave, as that remuneration may also be a partial payment of the due fee.’

This possibility has already been pointed out in previous editions of this publication, in a commentary on the personal interpretation of the Director of IS in Bydgoszcz from 14 April 2016 20 .

1. 4. Precise determination of liability rules for incorrect display and settlement of increased revenue costs

The interpretation states that it is the taxpayer's responsibility to correctly determine the revenues, take into account the costs of obtaining revenue at the correct level and calculate the tax. Therefore, neither the employer nor any other paying agent is required to adjust the amounts of advance payments when the work was ultimately not created and increased revenue costs were applied.

However, the employer has a duty to demonstrate in the annual PIT information the actual costs of obtaining revenue when calculating advance tax. If in the annual declaration PIT-4R the employer has shown revenue including 50% the cost of obtaining revenue (and the work was not created), nor has it shown the correct amount of advance payments due for the income tax, and is therefore required to correct this declaration.

4.5. Summary of the case law of the administrative courts

In the general interpretation, the MF summarised the previous case law of the administrative courts and concluded the following: ‘In the light of the case law of the courts, for the purposes of applying 50% revenue costs:

1. there is not sufficient statement by the employer (another entity) and the employee (the party to the civil law contract) stating that the creative work has been done, without determining what work was created (he got up),
2. the payer should separate, as part of the remuneration and other components of the remuneration; the amount of the fee may result from the employment contract or from other regulations in force with the employer, e.g. the remuneration rules, as well as the civil law contract,
3. It is not sufficient to specify the percentage of working time contract for creative work or to establish it on the basis of work time records, as such distinction does not indicate whether any work was actually created (he got up).

Following the case law of the courts, it must be stated that:

• 1) the determination of the fee is within the contractual freedom of the parties to the contract (employment relationship, civil law contract),
• 2) no common rules governing the fixing of fees,

1. there are also no other universal rules, established practice and jurisprudence (except for the negative grounds set out in the caselaw which exclude the possibility of application) 50% the cost of obtaining revenue) which allows for an indication of the rules for documenting works covered by copyright,
2. the fact that copyright revenue and its amount must be properly documented and can be demonstrated by any legal evidence.’
3. 6. Determination of rules for documenting copyright revenues, including fee fixing based on working time

The general interpretation of the MF indicates that the copyright revenue must be properly documented and examples of such documentation are provided. As an example, a record of the resulting works, including works for which the pre-financing form of the payment of the copyright fee and the already created work is used. Such records should be kept by the employer and the employee.

In this register, the employer may also confirm the acceptance of the work or any other moment in which the copyright is transferred. The interpretation as a form of documenting the creation of the work also indicates ‘Employer and employee statement’.

The obligation to make such declarations may result from an employment contract or other internal regulations. This statement is intended to show what work was created (it is up), as the submission of the statement of the work itself will be considered insufficient.

It follows from the wording of the MF interpretation that the parties to the contract may accept any principle: ‘The agreement may explicitly indicate the amount of the fee or provide for the principle of the percentage of the fee to be determined in relation to the total amount of remuneration, except that the fee must be linked to a specific track (or tracks defined in a generic way)’.

The Minister of Finance also referred to the jurisprudence line, which shows that the percentage in the employment contract of time allocated by the employee for creative work or its determination on the basis of working time records is not sufficient, as such distinction does not indicate whether any work was actually created or created.

However, the Authority considered that the application of this method in conjunction with the created (created) work would be sufficient: ‘Calculation of the author's remuneration can therefore also be based on the time devoted by the worker to the creation (creation) of an employee's work, with the documentation kept, e.g.

records of works’.

In order to apply this method, the following conditions must be met cumulatively:

1. the creator devotes a strictly defined time to the creation (creation) of a particular work,
2. the creator records the time of creative work in a separate document (e.g. paper or electronic record – especially for this created software, database kept in electronic form or possibly in a statement made by the employer for a given period, e.g. month, quarter, half-year or year),
3. the time of creative work is accepted by the employer (e.g. he accepts registration entries, database entries or the statement in question) Under point 2),
4. all works (not only examples) created (or created) by the creator are also recorded or recorded (e.g. the same records, database or listed in the statement referred to Under point 2).

Example

If 70% the working time of the worker was the time of creative work (intended to create or create a particular work), it can be considered that 70% his remuneration for his work was a fee, and this part can be applied 50% the cost of obtaining revenue, provided that all four the points indicated above.

4.7. Applying increased revenue costs under other laws

The Minister indicated all existing at the date of the general interpretation, i.e. 15 September 2020, cases where increased costs are applied to creative activities not included in u.p.d.o.f. According to the general interpretation, the right to apply increased costs was further covered by:

1. academic teachers – indicated specific provisions of the Act of 20 July 2018 Law on Higher Education in Science (hereinafter: u.p.sz.w.n.). That's a joke.116 section 7 21 u.p.sz.w.n. the performance of the duties of an academic teacher is a creative activity of an individual character, which is worthy. 1 section 1 U.P.A.;
2. Scientific staff – indicated the separate regulations of the Act of 30 April 2010 about Polish Academy of Sciences 22 (Further: u.p.a.n.). and the Research Institutes Act. 23 (hereinafter: u.i.b.), according to which the performance of the duties of a scientific staff member constitutes a creative activity of an individual nature in question under Article 1(1) u.p.a. Article 94(1a) u.p.a. and Article 44(7) u.i.b.);
3. employees of the International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw – based on Article 14(5) Act on 26 June 1997 about the International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw 24 , the performance of the duties of a staff member, including the Institute, as a professor, researcher and assistant is a creative activity of an individual nature in question; under Article 1(1) U.P.A.;
4. employees of research units – according to Article 56a Act on 21 February 2019 about the Łukasiewicz Research Network 25 , the performance of the duties of a research unit worker is a creative activity of an individual nature in question; under Article 1(1) u.p.a.

The Staff Regulations cited above:

• 1) scientific
• 2) International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw,
• 3) Research units – entered into force 29 November 2019 Therefore, 50% the cost of obtaining revenue for the total remuneration of these employees may apply to revenues paid from 29 November 2019
• 4.8. Summary of the content of the general interpretation of MF

In conclusion, the General Interpretation of the MF stated that for the purpose of treating remuneration as a fee and applying to it 50% the cost of obtaining revenue is necessary:

• 1) the creation of a work which is the subject of copyright, which determines the use of copyright by the author and allows the author to dispose of the property rights to the work;
• 2) have objective evidence of the creation of the copyrighted work;
• 3) a clear separation of fees from other remuneration components, this condition not including the cases in which the 50% the cost of obtaining revenue may be applied to the entire remuneration of the creator.

As indicated in the interpretation: ‘The standard contained under Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. is a lex specialis in relation to the general cost-setting principle for obtaining revenue. Thus, only if it is clearly established that the revenue is covered by copyright can the increased cost of obtaining revenue (cf. NSA out of 26 April 2017, reference no. II FSK 3865/14, Legalis)’.

5. Showing increased revenue costs in annual declarations

As is apparent from the above interpretations of individual rulings issued in the new state of the law (from 1 January 2018), use of increased revenue costs on the basis of Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f. has been significantly reduced. However, if employers choose to apply these costs to part of their employees' income, they must be shown in the annual statement as described below.

5.1. Annual declaration on advance payments for income tax (PIT-4R)

In the form PIT-4R, i.e. the annual declaration of the advance on income tax collected, the amounts of the advance on income tax paid to employees and contractors in the tax year shall be recorded.

If employees or contractors were paid remuneration for creative activities (based on Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f.), this will affect the amount of the advance on income tax.

Advances must be shown in Part C point 1 „Advances on tax calculated by the payers in question under Article 31 and Article 42e(1) Act on the revenue listed in those provisions’, In items 10-33.

In the case of contractors, the advance paid shall be shown in Part C point 3 „Advances on the tax collected on the operating benefits of the specified value. 13 points 2 and 4-9 and Article 18 Act’, In items 46-57.

5.2. Information on income and on the collected advances on income tax (PIT-11)

In the form PIT-11 information on income, income and personal income tax advances collected. This information shall be issued and provided to the worker by the payer who during the year collects, collects and pays advances on income tax.

Revenue from the employment relationship for creative activities related to the application of increased revenue costs on the basis of Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f., is shown in Part E In item 29 including item 34.

If the increased costs of obtaining revenue from creative activities are not applied, only the costs of obtaining revenue from creative activities shall be fulfilled item 29, a item 34 leave itself unfilled.

A given worker may earn a income high enough within a year that this will result in exceeding the limit of increased costs of obtaining income from the employer - the payer.

In this case, the payer shows In item 34 only the amounts of income generated by the employee in question by that payer for which the total cost of obtaining the revenue in question under Article 22(9)(3) u.p.d.o.f., did not exceed the limit of Article 22(9a) u.p.d.o.f.

Where an employee makes a declaration during the year in which he requests no increased copyright costs from the month following the month of submission of the declaration (e.g.

in connection with the receipt of such revenues from several employers/contractors), the amounts in accordance with the declaration shall be reported only In item 29.

On the same basis, it is demonstrated In item 30 in conjunction with item 35 increased costs of obtaining revenue from creative work. Where the increased cost of obtaining revenue relates to the remuneration of creators obtained on the basis of a contract or a contract for a work, it shall be demonstrated accordingly. In item 49 and 50.

Important

If a work contract is concluded once per amount 200 PLN or lower and collected flat-rate tax (without taking into account the cost of obtaining revenue), there is no obligation to issue PIT-11. Information on flat-rate tax collection shall be provided in print PIT-8AR. Limit 200 PLN relates to a specific contract, not the sum of contracts during a year or even a month.

Values of revenues and costs shown in this row. 29, 30, 34, 35, 49 and 50 not rounded to full gold. The limit of increased income costs applies to all incomes of the employee(s) concerned obtained from all titles from all employers (contractors). Each payer applies a separate limit during the year when collecting advances.

A staff member may, after exceeding his limit, make a declaration not to apply the increased cost of obtaining revenue from the date indicated in the declaration.

According to Article 30(1) and Article 31 Act on 29 August 1997 - Tax Ordinance 26 , It is the obligation of the payer to determine whether the work carried out under the employment contract is the subject of copyright to pay the benefits.

It is also the payer who is responsible for incorrect application of the increased revenue costs (this position is confirmed, among others, by the Director of KIS in an individual interpretation from 10 May 2017 27 .

___________________________

Legal basis

• Article 30(31) o.p.,

• Article 5a(38-40), Article 22(2)(9-9b) u.p.d.o.f,

• Article 1(1)(2), Article 2(2), Article 4(3) u.p.a.,

• Article 7(2)(5) Act on 26 January 1984 Press law 28 ,

• Article 4 U.S.

The article comes from the book C.H. Beck Publishing House “The Tax and Balance Sheet Closing of the Year 2020” under the ed. prof. nazw. dr hab. Artur Hołda, https://www.ksiegarnia.beck.pl/19591-podatkowe-i-bilansowe-zamkniecie-roku-2020-artur-holda