The National Revenue Administration (Krajowa Administracji) has one of the most severe instruments in the tax office's arsenal: the ability to immediately block a business's bank account. This instrument, originally implemented to combat VAT carousels, is being used more widely each year. Data from the Ministry of Finance indicates a systematic increase in the number of blocked accounts – and an increasing number of cases where these blockings are unjustified.
STIR mechanism – where does the blockage come from?
The Clearing House's (STIR) IT system processes data from over 600 banks and credit unions, covering millions of settlement accounts. Based on risk analysis algorithms, the system assigns a risk indicator to individual entities, which can trigger a blocking decision. The legal basis is Articles 119zv–119zzj of the Tax Ordinance – this authority is vested in the Head of the National Revenue Administration (KAS) and selected Heads of Customs and Tax Offices (Warsaw, Wrocław, Łódź, Poznań, Białystok). Blocking can be applied to settlement accounts, VAT accounts, and term deposits – without prior notice to the business owner.
The scale of the phenomenon
Data from the Ministry of Finance document a dynamic, continuous increase in the use of this tool. In 2018 (as of April 30), only 41 accounts of 23 entities were affected. In 2019, this number increased to 566 accounts and 120 entities (PLN 69.7 million), in 2020, over 1,000 accounts of 196 entities (PLN 96.2 million), while in the first half of 2021, the number of entities subject to blocking increased by over 80% year-on-year. In 2023, the total value of blocked funds reached PLN 88.5 million, and the number of entities increased by over 17% year-on-year. Since the launch of STIR, the number of blocked companies has increased eight- to ten-fold. Tax experts point out that blocking affects, on average, only about 25% of the estimated losses, indicating a significant disproportionality of the measure used.
Blocking process and appeals process
The blocking occurs without prior notice. For the first 72 hours, the entrepreneur cannot make any payments; they do not know the reasons for the blocking or the details indicated by the algorithm. If the authority determines that there are grounds for further protection, it issues a decision to extend the blocking period – for up to three months. Ministry of Finance statistics do not indicate that the Head of the National Revenue Administration has ever waived the extension after 72 hours.
Formally, entrepreneurs have several appeal procedures available: a complaint to the Head of the National Tax Administration (KAS), a complaint to the Regional Administrative Court (WSA), a cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA), and a request to release the block (Article 119zw of the Tax Ordinance Act). In practice, none of these instruments provides real protection during the block. The complaint is reviewed by the same body that issued the decision – and it has not been upheld in any case so far. The Regional Administrative Court considers complaints on average after several weeks to several months, and the block often expires before the court issues a ruling, resulting in the proceedings being discontinued due to illegitimacy. The NSA has been waiting for over two years. Even a request to release funds for tax payment has not been granted so far.
The problem of participants in the transaction chain and legal assessment
The STIR algorithm does not distinguish between the initiator of fraud and a bona fide entrepreneur who purchased goods or services from a dishonest contractor. Particularly vulnerable sectors include e-commerce, transportation, textiles, fuels, and courier services. The Ombudsman for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises has repeatedly pointed out that the National Tax Administration (KAS) uses this tool "excessively" – in situations where the suspicion of fraud is not sufficiently substantiated. The principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 31, Section 3 of the Polish Constitution and Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, requires that the measure be adequate to the intended purpose. Blocking a multi-million-zloty account based on a vague algorithm result may violate this principle. Furthermore, the case law of the Regional Administrative Court (WSA) includes requirements regarding the specificity of the justification for a decision to extend the block – the algorithm's result alone does not constitute evidence of a fiscal crime.
What actions should I take when my account is blocked?
When blocking an account, time is of the essence. Recommended steps include:
- Immediate collection of full transaction documentation – invoices, contracts, correspondence with contractors
- Submitting a request for access to case files and a detailed analysis of the justification for the decision
- Complaint against the decision to extend the blocking period with precise formal and substantive objections
- Parallel filing of a complaint to the Provincial Administrative Court with a request to stay the execution of the decision
- Assessment of the validity of compensation claims against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code if the blockade proved unjustified
A laconic complaint devoid of precise legal grounds rarely yields results. A company account suspension can paralyze a company's operations within hours – a proper response, constructed from the outset, can determine its future survival.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice
Legal status as of May 26, 2026.
Author:
Series editor:
