Overview of Legal Changes for Employers and HR Departments

Parking Subscription - Employee Benefit or Taxable Income?

When an employer pays for an employee’s parking subscription, a question arises: is it merely a convenience, or does it constitute taxable and contributable income?

The answer stems directly from the tax regulations and case law — and leaves little room for doubt.

• Article 11(1) of the Personal Income Tax Act (PIT) defines income broadly: it also includes the value of benefits in kind and other gratuitous benefits.
• Article 12(1) of the PIT Act further clarifies that employment income covers not only monetary payments but also any other gratuitous benefits or benefits provided on behalf of an employee.

Therefore, if an employer covers the cost of a parking subscription, the employee obtains a real economic benefit — they avoid an expense that they would otherwise incur personally.

How should a parking subscription be settled?

The Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling (K 7/13 of 8 July 2014) outlines four criteria for recognizing a benefit as taxable income: voluntary use of the benefit, provision in the employee’s interest, measurable gain (increase in assets or avoidance of an expense), individual assignability.

A parking subscription meets all these criteria. The benefit is measurable (the value of the subscription) and individually assignable — for instance, a parking space allocated to a specific employee or position.

In practice, the tax authorities confirm this interpretation. The benefit is not included in the list of exemptions (Articles 21, 52, 52a, and 52c of the PIT Act), and therefore it is subject to both taxation and social security contributions. The employer must add the value of the parking subscription to the employee’s income and withhold the appropriate PIT advance.

Individual ruling of the National Tax Information Office (KIS) dated 4 September 2024: Free parking in a paid parking zone assigned to a specific employee constitutes a taxable benefit provided in the employee’s interest.

Will PIP Gain New Powers?

And what does this mean for Businesses?

The Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy intends that, starting in 2026, inspectors of the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) will be able — by administrative decision — to reclassify improperly concluded civil law contracts (including B2B, mandate, and contract for specific work agreements) into employment contracts, without referring the matter to court.

Such a decision would be immediately enforceable, meaning that the employer would have to promptly implement all obligations arising under the Labour Code, including:

• registering the employee with the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS),
• maintaining employment documentation,
• paying wages and granting leave,
• settling overtime and paying any outstanding social security contributions and taxes for the period covered by the decision.

The draft amendment also provides for:

• remote inspections (e.g. virtual site visits, online interviews, electronic protocols),
• doubling of maximum fines – up to PLN 60,000–90,000,
• immediate enforceability of decisions,
• short appeal deadlines: 7 days to the Chief Labour Inspectorate (GIP), and another 7 days to the labour court.

Implications of the new PIP powers for Businesses:

• increased risk of inspections and reclassification of B2B or civil law contracts,
• obligation to immediately implement the inspector’s decision,
• management board liability for outstanding contributions and taxes,
• higher employment costs and administrative burden,
• risk of fiscal and criminal liability,
• necessity to meticulously document the nature of each business relationship.

How can You practically protect Your company against these risks?

• conduct an audit of civil law and B2B contracts – eliminate features typical of employment relationships,
• clearly distinguish between employment and contracting/outsourcing, with proper business justification,
• tighten documentation and record-keeping in line with the Labour Code,
• plan training sessions for HR and payroll teams and implement internal control procedures,
• prepare an action plan for potential PIP decisions and communication scenarios,
• monitor the legislative process closely.

Concerns among practitioners regarding the proposed amendment:
The main risks include a surge in contract reclassifications and rising employment costs, possible retroactive recognition of employment relationships (involving ZUS, PIT, and interest), short appeal deadlines, and increased compliance obligations.

Source: portal gov.pl

The End of Unpaid Internships – A New Internship Act

On 16 September 2025, the draft Internship Act (prepared by the Ministry of Labour) was added to the agenda of the Council of Ministers. Its purpose is to eliminate unpaid internships and provide real protection for interns.

What will change (according to the draft outline):

• Repeal of the 2009 Act on Graduate Internships; the new regulation will cover internships and placements in the open labour market (with exceptions for labour offices, formal education, and regulated professions).
• A written internship agreement specifying duration, termination terms, programme, and the duties of the supervisor.
• A mandatory payment of at least 35% of the average wage (up to 100%), proportionally adjusted for part-time internships.
• A maximum internship duration of six months with the same host organisation.
• Paid leave entitlement: 1 day per month during the first quarter, 2 days per month during the second quarter.
• Occupational health and safety obligations, provision of protective equipment, and insurance coverage equivalent to that of contractors.
• A ban on circumventing labour law through internships; prohibition on requiring prior experience and an obligation to ensure educational objectives.
• The number of interns cannot exceed the number of full-time employees (for self-employed individuals – a maximum of one intern).
• The National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) will gain the authority to inspect the legality of internships.
• Exemptions: internships as part of formal education, organised by labour offices, or leading to regulated professions.

Source: portal gov.pl

EUREKA - a SIngle Database for Tax Interpretations

The Ministry of Finance has announced the centralisation of tax interpretations within the EUREKA system. Until now, local tax interpretations (e.g. those concerning property tax, agricultural tax, forestry tax, vehicle tax, or local fees such as market or advertising charges) were published only in the Public Information Bulletin (BIP) of individual municipalities or cities, which made comparisons and consistency difficult.

Starting from early 2026, all local tax interpretations — including those already issued — will be forwarded to the Director of the National Tax Information Office (KIS) and published in the EUREKA database. For businesses, this will mean a single access point for both current and archived tax rulings.

Why is this important?
Changes to property tax regulations effective from 2025 (introducing new definitions of “building” and “structure”) significantly increase the risk of inconsistent or incorrect interpretations.
Centralisation will make it easier to assess tax risk and ensure greater uniformity of practice.

The draft regulation has been submitted for public consultation, and the new provisions are expected to enter into force three months after publication. Link to the draft: https://tiny.pl/pmt7k9nt

Source: Rzeczpospolita Serwis PRO

Minimum Wage in 2026 - Official Figures

The Regulation of the Council of Ministers dated 11 September 2025 (Journal of Laws 2025, item 1242) confirms that:

• as of 1 January 2026, the minimum monthly wage will be PLN 4,806 gross,
• the minimum hourly rate (for civil law contracts) will be PLN 31.40 gross.

This represents an increase of PLN 140 per month and PLN 0.90 per hour compared to 2025. In 2026 – as in 2025 – only one adjustment (January) is planned.

Impact of the minimum wage increase on business operations:

• Labour costs will rise, noticeably so for companies with large employee volumes.
• Wage pressure is expected to ease slightly, as the minimum wage will account for a smaller share of the average salary (approximately 51% vs. 52.7% in 2025).

Remember: An increase in the minimum wage affects not only basic pay but also benefits and allowances, PPK contributions, payroll budgeting, and investment planning.

Source: portal Rzecznik Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorców

Sick Leave Does Not Always Protect Against Dismissal

Case Summary:
An employee, whose termination was being considered, left work during the day and subsequently obtained a medical certificate (backdated to cover that same day). The notice of termination was delivered during the employee’s absence.

The Supreme Court (judgment of 18 June 2024, case no. III PSKP 10/24) overturned earlier rulings and clarified:
Delivery of a notice after the commencement of sick leave violates Article 41 of the Labour Code, if the employee had no real opportunity to become aware of the document. Simply sending the notice is not sufficient. An email notice is valid only if electronic communication was previously agreed upon as an official means of correspondence.

At the same time, the Supreme Court highlighted the potential abuse of rights (e.g. avoiding receipt of the notice or obtaining sick leave immediately before termination). This issue is to be evaluated by the appellate court in light of the principles of social coexistence.

Key Takeaways for Employers:

• Deliver termination notices before the employee’s absence begins.
• Document the effectiveness of delivery (personal handover remains the most reliable method).
• Prepare procedures for cases where employees attempt to avoid receipt of termination documents.
• For managerial or independent positions, courts assess reasons for termination more strictly — unsatisfactory performance alone may be sufficient.

Helping a Colleague vs. Grounds for Dismissal

A recent lesson from a Supreme Court ruling

The case concerned an assistant store manager who, after clocking out and registering the end of their working time (via the RCP system), stayed to help the team and served a customer using another employee’s login. This practice had been tolerated by supervisors. The employer, however, applied Article 52 of the Labour Code (disciplinary dismissal).

The courts of first and second instance deemed the employee’s behaviour incidental, without intentional fault or gross negligence. The Supreme Court (decision of 26 February 2025, case no. III PSK 150/24) upheld this view, noting that a mere breach of procedures does not automatically constitute a serious violation of employee duties — especially when such practices have been tolerated within the company over time.

Practical Takeaways for Business Leaders:

• Company regulations must not remain “on paper” only.
• Tolerating “minor exceptions” creates legal risk in court proceedings.
• Regularly verify whether daily practices comply with internal policies.
• Communicate and enforce any changes clearly (e.g. regarding RCP or cash register procedures).

Outstanding Wages and Income Tax – What to Keep in Mind

Example:
A company pays overdue wages for September and October only in December and adds statutory interest for the delay.

Should an income tax (PIT) advance be withheld from the total payment? No, because:

• The wages (even if paid late) constitute employment income under Article 12(1) of the PIT Act, and an advance must be withheld from this portion.
• Statutory interest for delayed salary payments is exempt from PIT under Article 21(1)(95) of the PIT Act.

Remember:

• The PIT advance should be withheld only from the wage amount.
• Interest is not subject to PIT and should not be reported as taxable income in the monthly settlement.

Higher Penalties for Fiscal Crimes and Offences Starting in 2026

Along with the increase in the minimum wage to PLN 4,806 (effective 1 January 2026, Journal of Laws 2025, item 1242), sanctions under the Fiscal Penal Code (k.k.s.) will also rise.

Fiscal Crimes (Fines in Daily Rates):

• Daily rate: from PLN 160.20 to PLN 64,080.
• Minimum fine: 10 daily rates = PLN 1,602.
• Maximum fine: up to 720 daily rates, e.g. for tax evasion (Article 54 §1 k.k.s.), tax fraud (Article 56 §1 k.k.s.), customs offences, and violations relating to transfer pricing (Article 56c §1 k.k.s.), TPR reporting (Article 80e §1 k.k.s.), WHT statements (Article 56d §1 k.k.s.), and MDR reporting (Article 80f §1 k.k.s.).

Fiscal Offences (Fixed-Amount Fines):

• Court-imposed fines: from 1/10 to 20× the minimum wage.
• On-the-spot fine (mandate): up to 5× the minimum wage, i.e. PLN 24,030 as of 1 January 2026.
• Minimum fine for a fiscal offence: PLN 480.60.

Value threshold for classifying an act as an offence (≤ 5× the minimum wage): as of 1 January 2026 – PLN 24,030 (previously PLN 23,330).

Source: INFOR Lex

Employee Dismissal Criteria

Why a scoring matrix doesn’t replace sound judgment

A Real-Life Example:
An employer developed a very detailed evaluation matrix including criteria such as work quality, absenteeism, health and safety compliance, efficiency/innovation, and professional development — each with specific scores and weightings. In practice, discrepancies emerged between the scores and the actual picture of employees’ competencies. The issues included scoring errors in absenteeism and inconsistent decisions for employees with similar results. The courts of first and second instance reinstated the employee, and the employer’s cassation appeal failed to convince the Supreme Court.

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling of 2 April 2025 (case no. III PSKP 1/25):
Introducing a point-based evaluation matrix does not relieve the employer of the obligation to demonstrate that the assigned scores result from an objective and fair assessment. The evaluation must confront the criteria with the actual situation and provide justification for each negative partial score. Equal scores should lead to equal treatment (e.g. comparable offers of reassignment). In case of a dispute, the employer bears the burden of explaining how the points were assigned — otherwise, they risk losing the case.

Wniosek dla zarządzających firmą:

Nawet „aptekarska” matryca nie ochroni decyzji kadrowych, jeśli nie ma dowodów na rzetelne, mierzalne i porównywalne przyznawanie punktów oraz konkretne uzasadnienie wyboru osoby do zwolnienia w treści wypowiedzenia.

Takeaway for Business Leaders:

Even a meticulously designed scoring matrix will not protect HR decisions unless the employer can present evidence of fair, measurable, and comparable scoring, along with a clear justification for the dismissal included in the termination notice.