National Minimum Tax and Deadlines

The national minimum tax applies to CIT taxpayers who, in a given tax year, incurred a loss from sources other than capital gains, or achieved a low level of profitability—understood as a share of income in revenues other than capital gains not exceeding 2%.

In practice, this means that as part of the annual settlement for 2025, certain CIT taxpayers will be required to calculate and pay the national minimum income tax. This obligation must be fulfilled by the deadline for filing the CIT-8 return, which, as a rule, falls at the end of March 2026.

The regulations concerning the national minimum tax in 2025 have not changed compared to 2024.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with obligations related to the minimum tax is treated in the same way as failure to file or incorrect filing of the CIT-8 return. In particular, declaring an incorrect amount of tax liability results in tax arrears, accrual of interest, and may involve fiscal penal liability.

Exclusions in Determining Loss and the Income-to-Revenue Ratio

The legislator, in Article 24ca(2) of the CIT Act, provided for a number of exclusions applicable when determining a loss or the income-to-revenue ratio for the purposes of the minimum income tax.

The purpose of these exclusions is, in effect, to “cleanse” the calculation of those categories of revenues and costs that could artificially reduce profitability (e.g. investment expenditures, sectoral fees and taxes, increases in energy costs, transactions with regulated prices, or certain leasing costs). As a result, the assessment of whether a taxpayer meets the 2% threshold or reports a loss is intended to better reflect their actual operating situation.

Among the catalogue of exclusions is Article 24ca(2)(1), which provides that for the purposes of calculating the loss and the income-to-revenue ratio referred to in paragraph 1, the following shall not be taken into account if included in tax-deductible costs (including through depreciation charges): costs resulting from the acquisition, manufacture, or improvement of fixed assets, or from the use of fixed assets under an agreement referred to in Article 17a(1), where—pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 4a—depreciation is made by the lessee.

Article 24ca(2)(1) of the CIT Act – Interpretative Doubts

In practice, significant interpretative doubts have recently arisen regarding the above provision. These doubts were further reinforced by an unfavourable individual tax ruling issued by the Director of the National Tax Information on 8 May 2025 (ref. no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4010.134.2025.1.SP/IN).

In that ruling, the authority stated that for the purposes of calculating the profitability ratio referred to in Article 24ca(1)(2) of the CIT Act, a taxpayer should not exclude depreciation charges on its own fixed assets from the calculation. In other words, according to the Director, the taxpayer may not reduce the total amount of tax-deductible costs by depreciation charges on owned fixed assets, even if these significantly burden the operating result.

In the authority’s view, the possibility of making such an exclusion applies only where depreciation charges relate to fixed assets subject to a finance lease. Referring to the wording of Article 24ca(2)(1), the Director concluded that since the provision expressly excludes only costs related to fixed assets used under a lease agreement referred to in Article 17a(1), the exclusion cannot be extended to depreciation charges on fixed assets owned by the taxpayer.

Position of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw

In its final judgment of 24 October 2025 (case no. III SA/Wa 1520/25), the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw completely challenged the position of the Director.

The Court held that the authority had incorrectly interpreted Article 24ca(2)(1) of the CIT Act by limiting its application exclusively to depreciation charges on fixed assets used under a finance lease.

The Court emphasized that even a literal interpretation of the provision indicates that the exclusion applies both to costs (including depreciation) related to the acquisition, manufacture, or improvement of owned fixed assets, and to costs relating to fixed assets used under a lease agreement. The conjunction “or” is crucial here, as it covers two separate categories of cases.

The Court also noted that a finance lease does not fall within the category of “costs of acquisition, manufacture or improvement,” and therefore cannot be treated as the only permissible exclusion. Moreover, a purposive interpretation confirms that the exclusion was intended to protect taxpayers whose low profitability results from investments or industry specifics, rather than to limit the preference exclusively to leasing arrangements.

Consequently, the Court found the ruling incorrect and annulled it, stating that the taxpayer has the right to exclude depreciation charges on its own fixed assets when calculating the profitability ratio.

We Invite You to Cooperate

For those who have any doubts regarding the application of the national minimum tax regulations, we offer comprehensive support in:

• determining whether entity-based or subject-based exemptions from the minimum tax settlement apply,
• calculating the profitability ratio,
• calculating the minimum tax,
• selecting the most advantageous settlement method.

If you have any questions or require assistance in this area, please feel free to contact us.