In one of the latest editions of Puls Biznesu (issue of 26 January 2026), we could read that we have reasons to be proud of how dynamically Poland’s maritime cargo ports are developing and how effectively they compete with other European locations. Our geographically favourable position for cargo transport is one thing. However, it is also necessary to ensure the entire transport infrastructure in order to fully benefit from this advantageous location. Many indications show that this goal is being achieved. According to Puls Biznesu, last year alone our coastal terminals handled 18 percent more containers than in 2024. We are also transshipping more and more LNG, and the government has launched significant investments in the maritime economy (budget expenditures in this area increased by half). Virtually all Polish port hubs are breaking records: Gdańsk, Gdynia, Szczecin and Świnoujście – all of them are increasing their profits (growths of around 20 percent), because transshipment volumes are rising dynamically (last year they reached 3.9 million TEU): Gdynia recorded a 5 percent increase, Gdańsk 23 percent, and Szczecin as much as 44 percent.

In this context, it is hardly surprising that international supply chains increasingly include Poland. Additionally, more and more construction and assembly takes place in Poland – the capacity of Polish ports matters because projects carried out in Poland increasingly involve complex, large‑scale industrial structures.

What does the taxpayer’s business involve and where does the tax issue lie?

In the case we have on our table over coffee, we are dealing with a German company that delivered a sizeable machine to its Polish customer. The machine arrived via the port of Gdynia and everything proceeded quite normally at that stage. The non‑standard element, however, concerns the tax treatment (how else could it be), as the parties agreed on a certain simplification. Unfortunately, the simplification eventually turned into a complication (which happens far too often in the context of Polish taxation). 

In order to accelerate delivery and streamline installation of the machine in Poland, the Polish customer decided to take on the import‑related formalities (that is, the customer declared the import of the machine that had arrived in Europe from Asia).

What solution is provided under Polish regulations, and who fails to notice it?

Let us break down the above‑described supply from a purely tax – more precisely VAT – perspective. Let us take a deeper sip of coffee.

We are dealing with a defined supply chain originating from a non‑EU entity, and the subject of the successive supplies (a supply from an Asian manufacturer to a German supplier, followed by a supply from the German supplier to a Polish recipient) is a good that unquestionably requires specialised assembly in Poland.

This would not be an exceptional situation were it not for the fact that, purely for practical reasons, the last buyer in the supply chain decided to carry out the import formalities independently and became the entity declaring and settling the import – before the goods in question were actually delivered to it following the necessary assembly.

Thus, we have: 

• entity A (the first supplier from outside the EU, exporting from its own country),
• entity B (the second supplier, established in the EU and registered for VAT both in another Member State and in Poland, making a supply with assembly in Poland), and
• entity C (the final buyer who, even before the assembly, formally completed the import in Poland and at the same time acquired the assembled good). 

As a result, the final buyer (entity C) received a decision issued in its name by the customs and revenue office for the import into the Union (Poland), as well as an invoice for the supply with assembly of the already imported good from entity B – with Polish VAT, because entity B is excluded from the obligation to apply the reverse charge (it was and is VAT‑registered in Poland).

Had entity B not been registered for VAT in Poland, the reverse charge would have applied. In that case entity C could have benefited from the interesting provision under Article 30c(2) of the VAT Act. 

This interesting provision states that if VAT has already been settled once (upon import), it does not need to be settled a second time if the supply following the import is settled under the reverse charge mechanism (the tax is accounted for by the purchaser) – in such a scenario only any excess value of the goods (together with assembly) would be subject to settlement, as that portion of the value naturally could not have been settled at import. 

Ergo: if, for some reason, the reverse charge cannot be applied, then the post‑import supply must be settled twice: once upon the physical entry of the goods into Poland (import), and a second time when documenting the domestic supply with assembly in Poland. The buyer should be able to deduct both the VAT charged on the declared import (remember, the buyer carried out this process on behalf of its supplier) and the VAT charged in connection with the domestic supply with assembly. This is not an abuse – it is simply a matter of ensuring that the VAT settlement is monitored (for certainty) twice. 

The Head of the National Revenue Administration Information Centre expressed a different – and, what a surprise, rather absurd – view in a recent ruling (see tax interpretation of 18 June 2025, ref. 0114‑KDIP1‑2.4012.389.2025.2.RM). But the story does not end there. The case will be examined by the court – so we will most likely enjoy yet another cup of coffee over it.