The bill was a bit orderly, while the basic design of the new tribute remained virtually unchanged. The most controversial defining provisions of the Act, including the definition of the entity, i.e. the unambiguous indication of who is to be the taxpayer, have also remained unchanged.
In addition to the above-mentioned shortcomings which seem to be the most important, the project still leaves much doubt as to the subject matter of taxation, the rules on charging and collection.
In the current draft retail tax law, the definition of a commercial network remains as a taxable person, which is to be a group of entities in which the franchiser and other sellers using the commercial brand operate. The French are expected to act as a tax payer on commercial networks.
The way in which the French institutions are understood by the authors of the bill is extremely simplistic. The decisive and, in fact, the exclusive criterion is the use of a commercial brand. Such simplification may have consequences in the form of an additional fiscal burden on entities which, as previously stated, were to remain outside the scope of this tax.
It should be pointed out that franchise agreements are widely used in Polish retail sales – not only by very large corporations/trade networks, but often by many entrepreneurs operating shops under their own company. However, the proposed solution means that this criterion will be very easily met to become a commercial network.
This is the case when a commercial brand is used in connection with the sale of the supplier's products, which, in cooperation with the seller, makes available equipment and solutions to promote its commercial brand (e.g. refrigerators, furniture, shopping sites).
In many cases this involves the conclusion of a contract/agreement governing the use of the supplier's trade mark/trade mark.
The wording of the provision described makes it clear that if it entered into force in the current form, it would appear that there are a very large number of commercial networks in Poland within the meaning of the retail tax rules. As a consequence, it would appear that the threshold of turnover which is seemingly safe for a small business (1,500,000 per month) at franchise level would be exceeded in connection with cooperation with practically independent retailers.
In addition to the above-mentioned shortcomings which seem to be the most important, the project still leaves much doubt as to the subject matter of taxation, the rules on charging and collection.
Currently, the bill has been sent to other ministries for interministerial consultations to continue until 10 February 2016 Thus, in less than a week, we will know whether the ongoing consultation will eliminate these shortcomings.
It should be positively assessed that the project was officially published on the pages of the Government Legislative Centre, and another communication appeared on the pages of the Ministry of Finance. A justification was published along with the project, but it is a rather laconic document that does not answer most of the questions of those interested in the subject.