Six months with new real-estate tax rules

As of January 2025, significant amendments to Poland’s real estate tax entered into force, introducing new compliance challenges for businesses. The new legislation has compelled many entities to review and update the catalogue of taxable assets. A key novelty lies in the departure from references to the Construction Law when defining core concepts relevant to the real estate tax. The amendment introduces new statutory definitions within the tax regulations for terms such as building, structure, construction works, and permanent attachment to land.

Although the declared aim of the reform was to reduce interpretative discrepancies between taxpayers and tax authorities, it is already evident that the new provisions may lead to both increased tax burdens and a rise in disputes with the tax administration.

A new approach to the definition of a building
From January 2025, a new autonomous definition of a building for the purposes of real estate tax is in force. According to the revised provision, a building is a structure:

• Permanently attached to land,
• Created as a result of construction works,
• Equipped with installations enabling its use in accordance with its intended function,
• Clearly separated from space by construction partitions,
• Possessing both foundations and a roof.

The definition does not deviate fundamentally from the previous legal state (i.e., pre-2025), we still analyse, for example, whether a structure has a roof – this remains one of the key criteria for determining whether an object qualifies as a building for real estate tax purposes. In an interpretation[1] issued under the new legal regime – it was confirmed that once the roof has been permanently and completely removed, the real estate tax obligation ceases with respect to that building.

As previously, the real estate tax applies to the building along with installations enabling its use in line with its function. The explanatory memorandum to the amendment clarifies that such installations include electrical, water supply, sewage, heating, telecommunications, and gas installations. These are not to constitute separate taxable items, and hence should not be taxed individually, since the tax base for buildings is their usable area. The same explanatory notes stress that the scope and type of installations included in the definition of a building will depend on the building’s purpose. Despite this, questions still arise regarding the scope of this term, especially given that the new definition of a structure introduces additional terms such as installation devices and technical equipment. We are currently awaiting the first tax rulings on this matter.

Storage facilities excluded from the definition of a building
One of the most consequential changes is the exclusion from the definition of a building of structures intended for storing loose, liquid, or gaseous materials, whose principal characteristic is capacity. As a result, constructions such as tanks or silos – which were sometimes previously qualified as buildings – are now explicitly excluded. Until 2025, the classification of silo-type objects gave rise to numerous disputes. For instance, in a resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court dated 29 September 2021, ref. no. III FPS 1/21, the Court held that a silo may be considered a building if it meets the statutory criteria and its defining feature is usable area.

Currently, it appears that objects serving storage functions and characterized by capacity will be classified as structures. However, concerns arise from imprecise statutory language – such as ‘may be stored’ – which raises the question of whether mere technical capability is sufficient, rather than actual use. Equally ambiguous is the phrase ‘materials in pieces’, which lacks a statutory definition. Taxpayers are also concerned about potential attempts to tax conventional warehouses under these rules (as structures). So far, no tax rulings have been issued regarding the new law in this area.

Structure, assembly, and permanent attachment to land – new definitions
The most substantial change introduced in 2025 is the broad, new definition of a structure. A catalogue of objects classified as structures has been indicated; however, many terms remain unclear – which raised serious doubts already at the legislative stage. Of particular concern is the new definition of construction equipment, which includes utility connections, installation devices and other technical equipment directly connected to a building or structure necessary for its use. This regulation is highly controversial and may have potentially far-reaching consequences. It is unclear how to interpret terms such as installation devices or technical equipment. Although it includes conditions such as ‘direct connection’ and ‘necessity’, their subjective nature makes it difficult for taxpayers to settle taxes according to the new rules.

A crucial legal safeguard for taxpayers against over-taxation of machines and devices is the requirement that a structure must arise as a result of construction works – including construction, reconstruction, or assembly as understood under the Construction Law. However, the term ‘assembly’ has proven contentious. In a recent interpretation[i], the tax authority concluded that the colloquial understanding of ‘assembly’ suffices to meet the condition of creation through construction works. It is difficult to agree with such an approach – not every instance of ‘assembly’ in the colloquial sense should be regarded as an assembly within the meaning of the Construction Law.

The same interpretation also addresses the issue of permanent attachment to land. The amendment introduced a definition whereby such attachment means a connection to land that ensures the object’s stability and resistance to external factors independent of human action. Unfortunately, the authority opined that placing an object on concrete blocks already constitutes permanent attachment, even though the explanatory notes to the amendment explicitly state that such cases (such as mobile containers) should not be considered permanently attached.

What’s next?
The amendment was intended to dispel interpretative ambiguities – yet early interpretations demonstrate that the problem persists. We observe a clear trend among tax authorities toward a fiscally oriented approach, which means that judgments of administrative courts will be decisive in shaping the practical application of the new provisions.

We therefore encourage taxpayers, especially in areas of legal uncertainty, to secure their positions by submitting a request for an individual tax ruling. In the event of an unfavourable response from the local municipality, the ruling should be appealed. Yes, proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court may be lengthy – but given that real estate tax represents a significant cost of doing business today, going through the full procedure is often well worth the effort.

[1] Interpretation dated 9 May 2025, ref. no. WPO-DNT.310.1.1.2025.PR
[i] Interpretation dated 6 February 2025 (ref. no. FN-310.1.2025)