The contemporary tax system in Poland is characterized by the increasing automation of analytical processes by the National Tax Administration (KAS) and a broad range of reporting on schemes and transactions. For business managers, this means that errors in tax settlements are no longer the domain of disputes over the amount of a company's liability, but have become a real source of personal risk under the Fiscal Penal Code. Understanding the mechanisms of this liability is crucial for effectively managing a company's legal security.
The foundation of fiscal criminal liability in corporate structures is Article 9 § 3 of the Fiscal Penal Code. This provision establishes a legal fiction, according to which the person responsible for fiscal crimes or misdemeanors is held liable as the perpetrator for fiscal crimes or misdemeanors. In case law, it is assumed that the status of a management board member is sufficient to attribute responsibility, provided that there has been no clear and effective delegation of responsibilities to other individuals, such as the financial director or an external tax advisor. However, it should be noted that simply entrusting bookkeeping to a professional accounting firm does not automatically relieve the management board of its oversight responsibilities.
The key element determining whether an act constitutes a crime under the Penal Fiscal Code is guilt. Unlike tax liabilities, which are objective in nature, fiscal criminal liability requires proof that the perpetrator acted intentionally, or in certain cases, unintentionally, if the law so provides. In the era of SAF-T reporting and the STIR system, law enforcement agencies increasingly argue that, given the scale and professionalization of economic activity, a manager should be aware of irregularities, which leads to the construction of eventual intent. Therefore, an entrepreneur does not have to intend to commit a crime; it is sufficient that they accept that their negligence in supervising the finance department may lead to a reduction in public law liabilities.
In the defense process against fiscal criminal charges, institutions that allow avoiding punishment despite the occurrence of an error are of fundamental importance. The most important of these is active remorse, regulated in Article 16 of the Penal Code. This is a unilateral declaration by the perpetrator of an act, which—if submitted effectively, meaning before the authority clearly documents the offense—obligates the state to refrain from imposing a penalty. However, it should be remembered that the effectiveness of active remorse is strictly dependent on the simultaneous settlement of the reduced tax liability in full, along with interest. In the business environment, amending the tax return is also a crucial instrument, which in many cases, if the appropriate deadlines are met, eliminates criminal liability without the need to file separate procedural documents.
In summary, tax-related risk should be viewed as an integral part of company management. Developing internal tax procedures (so-called tax compliance) not only ensures accurate accounting but also serves as a key line of defense for management board members. Documenting decision-making processes and regular tax audits demonstrate due diligence, which, in the event of potential tax-related proceedings, is the most effective argument for avoiding personal criminal and financial penalties.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of May 11, 2026.
Author/Editor of the series:
