Tax Authorities Demand Up to 250,000 PLN: Thousands of Poles Caught in a Tax Trap

Thousands of taxpayers who sold apartments years ago face unexpected retrospective tax demands and years of administrative battles over a registration relief technicality.

Apartment Sale Tax: Why Are Tax Authorities Revisiting Cases from a Decade Ago?

38,000 PLN, 100,000 PLN, and even 250,000 PLN are the amounts demanded by the tax office from individuals who sold an apartment over a decade ago. Many of them were convinced that, under the regulations in force at the time, they benefited from the registration relief and did not have to pay tax. Today, it turns out that the dispute is far from over, and the Ministry of Finance does not plan special solutions for those affected.

Most people assume that after selling an apartment, settling the tax definitively closes that chapter. Documents go to the archive, the mortgage is paid off, and life goes on. Therefore, decisions from tax offices arriving a dozen or so years after the sale of a property come as a huge surprise to many taxpayers.

The problem affects individuals who bought apartments or houses between 2007 and 2008 and then sold them before five years had passed since acquisition. At that time, the registration relief was in force, which was supposed to exempt property owners meeting specific conditions from income tax.

What Was the Registration Relief and Who Could Benefit From It?

It is around these regulations that one of the loudest tax disputes of recent years has grown. The tax authority considers that some taxpayers did not fulfill all the formalities required by the law. The result is decisions ordering the payment of a 19 percent PIT tax, increased by interest accrued over many years. In individual cases, liabilities reach up to 250,000 PLN. However, the most controversial aspect is that many apartment owners lived for years under the conviction that they had settled the sale in accordance with the regulations in force, only to find out later that the tax office interpreted their situation completely differently.

The registration relief applied to individuals who acquired real estate in 2007–2008 and sold it before the lapse of five years from the purchase. It allowed them to avoid the 19 percent PIT tax on the sale of the apartment if the taxpayer was registered in the sold premises or house for at least 12 months. The regulations also required submitting a statement on using the relief. This additional obligation became the source of multi-year disputes with the tax office, as many taxpayers claimed they were unaware of the necessity to complete this formality.

Registration Relief: Why Does the Lack of a Single Statement Cost Up to 250,000 PLN?

The source of the problem turned out to be one of the requirements associated with the registration relief. Most property owners knew that the condition for tax exemption was at least one year of registration in the sold premises, a condition many met without doubt. Considerably fewer people realized that the legislator provided for yet another obligation: submitting a separate statement on using the relief. It was precisely the absence of this document that became the basis for questioning the tax exemption.

Taxpayers have been raising the same argument for years, claiming that no one drew their attention to the additional formality. Notaries did not inform about it, it did not stem directly from activities related to selling the apartment, and the obligation itself was placed in transitional provisions that were not easy reading for the average citizen. Today, the consequences of those regulations are felt by people who sold apartments over a decade ago, for whom a dispute with the tax office means multi-year proceedings, accrued interest, and the necessity to defend their positions before administrative courts.

Constitutional Tribunal Verdict on Registration Relief: Why Can Taxpayers Still Not Recover Their Money?

When the Constitutional Tribunal ruled in July 2025 that regulations making the registration relief dependent on an additional statement violated the Constitution, many taxpayers breathed a sigh of relief. It seemed the multi-year dispute was nearing its end, and those who paid the tax would be able to claim their rights. However, this did not happen, as the key problem remains the fact that the ruling has not been published in the Journal of Laws. From the perspective of Tax Ordinance regulations, this is of immense importance, because publication of a ruling opens the path to resuming tax proceedings in specific cases.

As a result, a situation arose that is difficult to explain to people outside the legal world. On one hand, there is a ruling indicating taxpayers may have been treated unfairly; on the other, tax authorities continue to issue decisions based on existing regulations and do not change their stance. This paradox is precisely what brought the registration relief issue back into public debate and onto the desks of the Ministry of Finance and the Ombudsman.

Ministry of Finance on Registration Relief: The Ministry Plans No Changes for Taxpayers

Following the Constitutional Tribunal’s verdict, many taxpayers expected the Ministry of Finance to propose regulations allowing the multi-year dispute to end, but the ministry chose no such move. The resort consistently emphasizes that it is not working on solutions directed solely at individuals who lost the right to the registration relief due to failing to submit a statement. In responses directed to the Ombudsman, it indicates that the unpublished ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal cannot constitute a basis for resuming concluded proceedings.

The ministry also points out a second problem: even if the verdict were published, some cases could still end with a refusal to annul decisions due to the statute of limitations on tax liabilities. From the ministry’s perspective, current Tax Ordinance provisions leave little room for interpretation, meaning thousands of taxpayers remain in uncertainty while some conduct disputes with the tax office or try to determine if any recovery path exists.

The Ombudsman Intervenes in the Registration Relief Case: “The State Should Fix Its Mistake”

A contrasting stance is presented by the Ombudsman, who has long drawn attention to the consequences borne by individuals who used the registration relief years ago. According to the Ombudsman, citizens should not bear responsibility for the legislator’s errors or the ongoing dispute regarding the effects of Constitutional Tribunal rulings, indicating the state should create a mechanism to fix the effects of regulations deemed unconstitutional.

This is not solely a dispute over tax law interpretation, but in the Ombudsman’s view, also concerns the protection of the citizen’s principle of trust in the state. If a taxpayer acted in accordance with information available at the time of property sale, it is difficult to expect them to bear the consequences of unclear regulations a dozen or so years later, though repeated appeals to the Ministry of Finance have not altered its stance.

38,000, 100,000, and Even 250,000 PLN: Such Decisions Are Received by Taxpayers

Behind the regulations and court rulings stand concrete people whose stories best illustrate why the registration relief issue stirs so many emotions. Media reports have described cases of families who, years later, received decisions ordering the payment of 38,000 PLN, 100,000 PLN, or even 190,000 PLN in tax along with interest, with some combined liabilities exceeding 250,000 PLN.

In one such case, an elderly married couple spent several years paying off liabilities enforced by the tax office, eventually taking out a loan to avoid losing their apartment. They ultimately paid not only the tax itself, but also interest and enforcement proceeding costs, making the discussion about registration relief an ongoing burden on household budgets and a reminder that settled matters can be reopened.

Who Does the Registration Relief Concern? Check If the Tax Office Can Demand Tax

Although the topic attracts major interest, it does not concern everyone selling real estate. The highest risk applies to taxpayers covered by regulations in force during 2007–2008 when the registration relief functioned, whereas individuals settling apartment sales under current rules utilize different regulations.

Purchasing an apartment in 2007–2008 and selling it before 5 years means the case may concern the registration relief. Selling an apartment bought after 2009 means other rules apply. Selling after five years from acquisition generally implies no PIT tax, while selling before five years currently allows utilizing the modern housing relief upon meeting statutory conditions.

This is an important distinction because social media comments sometimes suggest the tax office can question any apartment sale from years ago today, whereas the dispute strictly concerns a specific group of taxpayers and specific regulations active for a relatively short period.

Tax Statute of Limitations: Why Many Taxpayers Will Not Recover Their Money

One of the most frequently repeated questions is why individuals who won their dispute before the Constitutional Tribunal still cannot recover their money, with the answer hidden in the Tax Ordinance regulations. A favorable ruling alone is not enough to resume a completed proceeding, as statutory deadlines and the institution of the tax liability statute of limitations also hold significance.

The biggest obstacles indicated by the Ministry of Finance mean that some taxpayers, despite a favorable Constitutional Tribunal ruling, still cannot effectively demand the annulment of decisions or the return of paid tax.

What to Do After a Tax Office Decision? What Options Do Taxpayers Have?

Individuals who received a decision regarding the registration relief often seek a single, universal answer, which unfortunately does not exist in such cases. The possibility of taking further actions depends on many factors, including the date of the decision, the stage of the proceeding, and whether the tax liability has already expired due to limitation periods.

Experts point out that the first step should be a thorough analysis of documents related to the sale of the real estate and the subsequent tax proceeding, allowing an assessment of whether available legal measures remain in a specific case before taking further steps.

Every case has its own specific characteristics, which is why individuals in a similar situation should consider consulting a tax advisor or legal counsel specializing in tax law.