20.06.2026
For years, the transfer pricing statement has been one of the least popular transfer pricing compliance obligations. A short declaration, yet carrying significant weight: a confirmation that the local transfer pricing documentation had been prepared in accordance with the actual facts and that the prices applied were at arm’s length. The statement had to be signed personally by the head of the entity, under the risk of fiscal penal liability. For many management boards, it was this signature—rather than the documentation itself or the arm’s-length analysis—that caused the greatest sense of personal concern.
Now, this formal burden is set to be removed. The obligation to submit the statement is expected to disappear entirely. This is not merely a cosmetic change but a complete elimination of the requirement. That does not mean everything disappears—but more on that in a moment.
Two Draft Versions, Two Different Approaches
It is worth looking at how the idea evolved, as the process reveals more than the final outcome itself.
Under the original deregulation proposal, the statement was to be removed from the TPR information return and incorporated into the local transfer pricing documentation as a mandatory, signed element. In other words, the obligation was not being abolished—it was simply being relocated.
Following public consultations, the Ministry of Finance went a step further and abandoned that concept altogether. In the latest post-consultation version of the draft legislation, the statement is to appear neither in the TPR nor in the local file. It ceases to exist as a separate obligation rather than merely changing its location.
What Else Is Changing?
The most tangible consequence of the proposed amendments concerns the signing of the TPR.
Until now, the TPR information return has been subject to special signing rules. As a rule, it could only be signed by the head of the entity or by a narrowly defined group of professional representatives. The presence of the statement within the TPR was precisely what necessitated this signing regime.
Under the proposed changes, the TPR will be signed in accordance with the general rules of the Tax Ordinance Act, including by an authorised representative empowered to sign tax declarations under a UPL-1 power of attorney. In practice, this means the end of situations where a CEO or management board member located outside Poland had to sign the document personally. For multinational groups, this represents a meaningful administrative simplification.
What Does This Change Not Change?
This is the key point—one that can easily be overlooked amid enthusiasm about reduced formalities.
The statement may disappear, but the standard remains unchanged. The requirement is still to set transfer prices on arm’s-length terms and to prepare reliable documentation. The explanatory memorandum to the draft legislation explicitly states that abandoning the statement does not in any way limit the tax authorities’ powers to verify whether prices are arm’s length and whether the documentation accurately reflects the facts.
In other words, we will no longer be formally declaring arm’s-length compliance through a statement, but we must still be able to demonstrate it whenever the authorities request the documentation. The centre of gravity does not disappear; it merely shifts from a formal declaration to the quality of the documentation itself. Given that transfer pricing audits remain one of the key areas of focus for tax authorities, reducing formalities should not be interpreted as a signal to relax compliance efforts.
It is also worth noting that the full picture will emerge only once the final version of the legislation is adopted. Under the earlier draft, the removal of the statement was linked to fiscal penal sanctions for defective transfer pricing documentation. How this issue will be addressed following the abandonment of the statement—and whether liability for “non-arm’s-length” documentation will be anchored elsewhere—is one of the aspects that should be monitored closely.
What Does This Mean for Management Boards and Tax Departments?
Three practical conclusions can be drawn.
First, the TPR filing process should become less burdensome from a formal perspective. This is particularly good news for entities with foreign-based management boards.
Second, the disappearance of the statement should not be confused with the disappearance of responsibility.
Third, this is a good moment to stop treating transfer pricing as a recurring annual compliance exercise and start viewing it as a tool for planning, risk management, and defence.
Final Note — An Important Caveat
At this stage, these are still proposed changes. The legislative process is ongoing. Therefore, the most prudent approach today is to prepare substantively and continue strengthening documentation quality, rather than assuming that a formal simplification will translate into less work.
If there is one lesson from this development, it is that deregulating a formal obligation and deregulating risk are two very different things. The first is already happening. The second is not.
The progress of the legislative process—from the original draft to the post-consultation version—can be followed on the website of the Government Legislation Centre (draft bill UDER107).
