KSeF: Transition to Version 2.0 Confirmed
Poland’s Ministry of Finance officially confirmed the final transition roadmap for the National e-Invoicing System (KSeF) to version 2.0, with the mandatory start date remaining February 1, 2026 for large taxpayers and April 1, 2026 for all other taxpayers. In September 2025, the older KSeF 1.0 test environment was shut down, and new KSeF 2.0 test environment was launched in October 2025. This critical phase gives businesses and software providers a short window to test their compliance and integration with the updated platform ahead of the mandatory deadline.
VAT Rules Clarified for Poland’s Deposit Refund System
Ahead of the new Deposit Refund System launch on October 1, 2025, the Ministry of Finance clarified key VAT rules for the system. It was confirmed that the deposit amount itself is VAT neutral during current transactions and is not part of the taxable base for the beverage. VAT will only apply to the deposit if the packaging is not returned by the consumer, at which point the deposit becomes part of the sales price and is taxed at the same rate as the product.
VAT Exemption Threshold Increased
In a move aimed at supporting small businesses, the Polish Parliament approved an increase to the subjective VAT exemption threshold. Effective from October 1, 2025, the annual turnover limit for VAT exemption has been raised from PLN 200,000 to PLN 240,000. This change allows a broader group of small entrepreneurs to remain outside the scope of VAT obligations, reducing their administrative burden.
The end of a “complex supply”: Supreme Administrative Court forces manufacturers to invoice production tools (molds) separately from the goods
In a landmark case constituting a vital victory for the Polish tax authorities, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that selling finished goods and selling the tool for the production of these goods are two completely separate and independent transactions for VAT purposes. The ruling will have major implications for manufacturers.
Background of the case
The case concerned a packaging manufacturer that supplied finished products, such as bottles and caps, to its contractors. To produce these items, the company utilized specialized production tools (molds). Under the contractual agreement, the cost of these tools was not charged upfront but was charged gradually by including a specific surcharge in the unit price of each finished product delivered. The ownership of the tools was to be transferred to the contractor once a pre-defined sales volume was reached. The contract also stipulated an early buy-out option and a penalty clause requiring an additional payment if the contractor failed to collect the agreed-upon minimum volume of goods within three years. The company contended that the sale of the tools was an ancillary operation to the main supply of finished goods and thus formed a single, complex VAT service, requiring only one invoice (with the exception of an early buy-out).
The tax authorities and the court of the first instance both challenged this approach and stated that there are two separate transactions for VAT purposes: (i) transfer of finished products (goods) and (ii) transfer of tools / molds.
The ruling of Supreme Administrative Court
The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of September 26, 2025 (I FSK 1233/22), upheld the position of the tax authority, confirming the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the supply of finished packaging and the subsequent transfer of the specialized production tools constitute two separate and independent supplies of goods for VAT purposes. The Court dismissed the company’s argument regarding a single complex service, stating that there was no strict connection between the two elements that would prevent their independent existence. Since the supplies were not artificially separated, they must be separately documented with their own VAT invoices and taxed accordingly. Furthermore, the Court stated that any additional payment collected when the client failed to meet the minimum purchase threshold within three years must be treated as payment for the tool itself, not as an adjustment to the price of the last batch of finished goods.
ABC Tax’s view
This ruling has critical implications for all manufacturing companies that transfer the ownership of specialized tooling (such as tools, molds or dies) to their customers by embedding the cost into the price of the final product. The judgment effectively dismantles the concept of a single complex supply in this context. The Court confirmed that the transfer of the tools’ ownership is a separate supply of goods and cannot be considered a merely ancillary cost, like packaging or transport. Consequently, the “amortization” model of passing on mold costs is now inherently risky under VAT law, demanding an immediate audit of existing invoicing procedures.
As with every tax case, the tax position very much depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Accordingly, if a company uses tools / molds in the production of goods, what we would advise is to carefully examine the business model and check if any action is needed after the Supreme Court’s judgement.
To mitigate future risk, companies may need to revise their business model by either invoicing the tool sale immediately and separately or by retaining ownership of the tool and charging a distinct fee for their usage, maintenance, or licensing, thereby avoiding the two-separate-supplies trap.
The judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court of September 26, 2025 (I FSK 1233/22)