This article answers the following questions: 

• How can one obtain an individual tax ruling?
• What must be included in an application for an individual tax ruling?

Application for an individual tax ruling – key principles 

Let us recap: taxpayers who have doubts about how tax provisions should be interpreted may apply to the Head of the National Revenue Administration Information Centre (the Head of NRAIC) for an individual tax ruling. However, an entity wishing to obtain such a ruling must remember that the application must meet specific requirements – both in terms of form and content.

In an application for an individual tax ruling, the taxpayer must:

• describe the actual state of affairs or the future event that has given rise to doubts regarding the interpretation of the tax provisions, and
• present their own position regarding the legal assessment of that actual state of affairs or future event. 

What is crucial in the context of the case described in this article is that the description of the actual state of affairs or future event must include the key information that affects the Head of NRAIC’s assessment of whether the applicant’s position is correct. If any of this information later turns out to be untrue (for example, during an tax audit), the individual interpretation loses its protective effect. Therefore, when formulating the description of the actual state of affairs or future event, the applicant must be extremely careful – they should provide only verified information and avoid including their own subjective assessment of the events that have occurred (or are expected to occur).

What if, in the opinion of the Head of NRAIC, the application for an individual tax ruling is imprecise?

An applicant – a graduate of postgraduate studies in dietetics, who was simultaneously studying a medical discipline – submitted a request to the Head of the National Revenue Administration Information Centre. He sought clarification on whether the dietetic services he intended to provide could be exempt from VAT as medical care services provided within the scope of medical professions.

The Head of NRAIC requested that the taxpayer indicate whether he performed a medical profession within the meaning of the tax provisions. At the same time, the authority stated that it did not possess the knowledge or competence required to determine whether a given individual performs a medical profession. The problem was that if the applicant were to determine whether his profession qualifies as a medical profession for tax purposes, he would indirectly resolve the very issue he turned to the tax authorities to clarify. The interpretative authority would only need to confirm that a taxpayer performing a medical profession is entitled to the VAT exemption (which follows directly from the wording of the provision). The role of the Head of NRAIC would thus be reduced to merely quoting the statutory text.

The obligation to interpret the provisions rests with the tax authorities 

The dietetics graduate concluded that the institution of individual tax rulings serves a deeper purpose and decided to fight for his rights. He brought the case before the court, arguing that the Head of the National Revenue Administration Information Centre was unjustifiably refusing to issue an interpretation and was instead shifting the burden of interpreting tax provisions onto the taxpayer.

The courts – the Voivodship Administrative Court in Gliwice in its judgment of 6 July 2022 (case ref. I SA/Gl 586/22) and the Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 7 November 2025 (case ref. I FSK 1672/22) – sided with the taxpayer. They reasoned that when non‑tax provisions (in this case, the provisions of the Healthcare Activity Act) form part of a tax law norm, the Head of NRAIC must refer to their interpretation. Otherwise, the burden of interpretation would be “shifted” onto the taxpayer, rendering the very institution of tax rulings pointless.

This is not the first instance in which the Head of NRAIC has demanded that a taxpayer include, in their application for an interpretation, information that effectively narrows the role of the tax authority and makes the tax ruling mechanism useless for the applicant. Fortunately, the courts have issued rulings favourable to taxpayers, thereby obliging the Head of NRAIC to take responsibility for interpreting the provisions – not merely quoting them.