ZUS Erases Contributions After 25 Years as Up to 1.5 Million PLN Vanishes from Accounts

For decades, individuals pay social security contributions, only for ZUS to retroactively rule they lacked proper coverage, placing up to 1.5 million PLN of accumulated capital at risk due to strict limitation periods.

Decades of Contributions Challenged

Individuals work for a decade or even 25 years, paying monthly contributions and watching their capital grow in a ZUS account, only to later receive a decision stating they should not have been subject to insurance for that specific title. According to a case described by Gazeta Wyborcza, the stake can reach approximately 1.5 million PLN in contributions accumulated over a quarter of a century.

The problem affects individuals employed in their own companies as well as insured persons who combined employment, mandate contracts, or business activity. The Ministry of Family, Labor, and Social Policy admits that the regulations require changes, but as of early August 2026, the draft had not yet passed the full legislative path. ZUS formally does not issue a decision to “take away savings,” but it can determine that a given person was not insured under the title from which money was paid for years, leaving previously recorded contributions unable to build retirement capital while recovery of the oldest payments may already be time-barred.

The Scale of the Risk for Business Owners

The most striking example is the story of an entrepreneur described by Gazeta Wyborcza, where a man reportedly paid contributions for about 25 years in connection with work in his own company. After years, ZUS questioned the insurance title, with the disputed capital estimated at around 1.5 million PLN, though without full access to proceedings documents the amount cannot be treated as officially confirmed.

The Ombudsman also describes the case of Ms. Aldona, who paid contributions for 19 years from remuneration received in her own company, only for ZUS to rule that a majority stake meant traditional employee subordination was absent and the employment contract should not constitute an insurance title. Such a decision creates a painful scenario where the insured discovers the problem after many years, despite declarations having been accepted, transfers booked, and contributions visible on the account, only for ZUS to reevaluate whether the legal relationship genuinely provided a basis for insurance coverage.

How ZUS Reevaluates Insurance Titles

Decisions in such matters most frequently concern the very subject of social security coverage, with ZUS examining whether a genuine insurance title—such as an employment relationship, business activity, or mandate contract—existed during a given period. If the agency decides years later that the title did not exist or was incorrectly indicated, it can exclude the insured for the period covered by the decision.

The Ombudsman highlights the construct known as the “illusory partner,” referring formally to multi-person companies where one partner holds a decisive majority of shares and ZUS assesses that the employment of the main partner does not create a typical employment relationship. Not every employment contract between a partner and a company is automatically undermined, as actual employment conditions, management methods, share distribution, and employer subordination remain decisive factors.

The Trap of Overpayments and Expired Claims

The core of the problem lies in Article 24 of the Social Security System Act, under which unduly paid contributions expire after five years. If ZUS notifies the payer of the unduly paid amount, the five-year term is counted from the receipt of notification, but without such notification, the period runs from the date the contributions were paid.

This rule creates an exceptionally difficult situation when decisions cover the distant past, meaning the right to request a refund may no longer exist by the time ZUS determines the payment was undue. While the law provides that ZUS credits unduly paid contributions against overdue or current liabilities and then future contributions, or allows payers to request a refund, these solutions only help with amounts that can still be effectively settled.

Simultaneous Overpayments and Debts

A second group of cases concerns the concurrence of insurance titles, where a person simultaneously works on an employment contract, runs a business, performs a mandate contract, or acts as a company partner. Determining which title mandates compulsory contributions depends on activity type, earned remuneration, and applicable regulations.

Following a multi-year audit, it may turn out that contributions were directed to the wrong account or settled under an incorrect title, leading ZUS to deem certain payments undue while simultaneously calculating liabilities from the title it deems mandatory. If part of the overpayment has already expired, the interested party cannot always use the entire historical amount to cover the newly established debt.

Legislative Outlook for 2026

The Ministry of Family, Labor, and Social Policy confirms it is working on changes and has prepared a request to enter the bill into the government’s legislative work schedule, directed to the Team for Programming Government Work. As of July 31, 2026, the ministry noted that only a positive team decision and entry into the schedule would allow the project to move to further stages, meaning it was not yet an adopted government project or a law submitted for signature.

As of early August 2026, no specific date has been provided for the entry into force of the changes, which still face stages including arrangements, consultations, adoption by the Council of Ministers, work in the Sejm and Senate, presidential signature, and publication in the Journal of Laws. The announcement of the amendment does not currently halt procedural deadlines, meaning anyone receiving a decision must still act according to existing regulations without assuming a future law will automatically change their situation.