Judgment dated 18 February 2026, reference no. II FSK 711/23 The Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that leases in the part corresponding to the repayment of the goodwill are not for leasing provider (the funder) tax revenue. They are defined as the ‘payment of initial value of fixed assets’ referred to under Article 17f(1) CIT Act
The judgment in question was brought on a case in which the company which led the mines. The accounting and audit activities requested an individual interpretation indicating that they had acquired an organised part of the company, which she was later planning to return to a separate audit and business advice department to a related company in financial leasing
Its object was to be the Organized Part of the Enterprise, which included a team of material and intangible components with liabilities.
In its request for an individual interpretation, the company indicated that the price determined on the basis of the valuation of the valuer would outweigh the market value of the assets of the audit and business advice department.
This difference will correspond to the current value of the company, which the recipient company added (lessee) it shall be recognised as intangible and legal assets and shall be depreciated for tax purposes.
The agreement was to provide for an initial fee and leasing instalments, some of which, as explained by the company, would be a repayment of the initial value of the assets, including the value of the company.
In its application, the company indicated that, in part, the leasing instalments would correspond to the repayment of the initial value of fixed assets and intangible assets, they would not be tax revenues for it. In addition, the Company indicated that the financial leasing legislation requires that the ‘payment of initial value’ be treated symmetrically on the part of the financier and the beneficiary. She claimed that this also applies to the positive value of the company (goodwill).
The position of the Company was not agreed by the Director of KIS. He stated that the positive value of the company arises exclusively on the part of the beneficiary and that the part of the leasing charges per goodwill is not a repayment of the initial value, but a remuneration for the use of the subject-matter of the contract and constitutes a tax income for the sponsor.
Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań reference no. I SA/Po 632/22 he took sides with the company and pointed out that there was no reason to claim that the value of the company only arises during the execution of the contract.
The provisions provide for an exemption from the proceeds of the financing of that part of the fee, which represents the repayment of the initial value, and the Act allows depreciation of the value of the company created when giving the company for payment of the benefit. Thus, tax neutrality also includes goodwill.
The Court of Cassation brought an action against this judgment. The Supreme Administrative Court maintained its judgment by stating that the Coro CIT Act does not provide for an exemption or restriction of tax neutrality in respect of part of the leasing charges corresponding to the repayment of the goodwill, that the tax authority cannot construct such a restriction itself.
The Court of First Instance explained: if a financial leasing agreement meets the statutory conditions and the subject matter of the lease, in this case the ZCP, has been assessed by the expert at market value, there is no reason to claim that the goodwill arises only during the execution of the contract. On the contrary, it forms part of the value of an undertaking or part thereof already at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement.
Since the rules on financial leasing provide for an exemption from the revenue financing this part of the fees, which represents the repayment of the initial value – and the Act allows the depreciation of the value of the company created when the company or its organized part was surrendered for payment – tax neutrality also includes goodwill – said NSA. He therefore disagreed with the tax that the portion of the lease payments per goodwill was a separate remuneration for the use of the contract.
The NSA also indicated that the consequences of this interpretation concern both parties to the financial leasing agreement, i.e. both the financier and the beneficiary. In this situation, there is no income on the financing side, but there is no cost of obtaining revenue on the benefit side. Tax neutrality in this case should be preserved by judge Arthur Kot.