When the Warsaw legal advisor lost respective teeth and faced an costly implantation procedure, he came up with an thought that could save him thousands of gold. He decided to put expenditure on artificial teeth into the costs of his law firm, arguing that without his full teeth he could not decently execute the profession. His courageous effort to change the rules of accounting for medical expenses in companies ended in a spectacular defeat. The manager of National taxation Information (KIS) gave a clear interpretation, which is simply a informing to all entrepreneurs in Poland. It turns out that what appears essential for the image remains purely private spending for the fiscal system, and attempts to deduct it may lead to serious taxation problems.
An different thought of legal counsel: teeth as company cost?
The situation of the Warsaw legal advisor, conducting a single business activity, was seemingly simple: missing teeth required urgent and costly intervention. alternatively of paying out of his own pocket, the lawyer concluded that dental implants are in his case a key component in conducting business. He applied to the National taxation Information for an individual interpretation, citing the Law on Legal Advisors and the Code of Professional Ethics. His argument was thoughtful: he claimed that the deficiency of completed teeth could lead to violations of ethics rules, or even to suspension of the profession's right to practice. According to Bankier.pl portal, a lawyer, frequently representing clients before courts and public administrations, believed that the defective teeth violates his professional image and may consequence in disciplinary liability.
This innovative approach aimed at lowering the taxation base and saving a crucial amount. At the average cost of a single implant with a crown presently around 8000 PLN, according to the LCS portal Wrocław, and at a taxation rate of 32%, the lawyer could save around PLN 2560 On all implant. It seemed like a clever way to combine individual needs with business benefits.
Ruthless fiscal: ‘Personal expenditure, not corporate’
However, the manager of National taxation Information was not convinced by this different argument. In an individual explanation of the signature 0111-KDIB1-1.4010.262.2024.1.SG, KIS explicitly stated: ‘It is impossible to conclude that a failure of teeth can consequence in a breach of the ethics of a legal counsellor resulting in disciplinary penalties and causing the failure of the right to prosecute a profession’. This is simply a key conviction that closes the way for akin trials in the future.
According to the fiscal assessment, expenditure on dental implants is personal. According to Interia Biznes portal, they concern wellness improvements or aesthetics, and are not straight related to obtaining income in business. The BIS recalled the basic conditions for considering the expenditure as a cost of obtaining revenue: it must be borne by the taxpayer, must stay in connection with economical activity and be incurred in order to obtain, preserve or safe revenue. In the case of implants, according to the IRS, this direct relation simply does not exist, regardless of how much appearance affects the professional image.
Precedents and financial consequences: How much can you lose?
The case of the Warsaw lawyer is not isolated. According to Infodent24.pl, a akin application was made by a previously known singer. She argued that her mouth and teeth are her main tool for working during concerts and vocal activities, and viewers pay peculiar attention to her smile. She stressed that without her profession she would not have chosen specified costly dental services. In this case too, National taxation Information refused, considering dental treatment as individual expenditure, contingent on wellness and not straight economical activity.
These stories are a clear signal for all entrepreneur: the taxation is ruthlessly distinguishing individual expenses from corporate expenses. Even if your appearance is of fundamental importance to professional success – whether as a lawyer, vocalist or presenter – spending on improving wellness or aesthetics remains private in the eyes of the office. This means that possible savings in the order of respective 1000 zlotys, specified as those of which the lawyer dreamed, are out of reach, and an effort to get them may have unpleasant consequences.
When can a medical expense be? Avoid control!
Despite the rigorous fiscal position, not all medical expenses are automatically discarded. The website of the Entrepreneur's Guide.pl indicates that it is crucial to show direct and indissoluble relation with the activity. For example, corrective glasses for an accountant working on a computer can be considered as the cost of obtaining income if they are essential to execute work. Similarly, preventive investigating required by the employer or compulsory vaccinations in certain professions can be classified as company costs.
But the line is very thin. Before you decide to put any expense into company costs, ask yourself 3 key questions:
- Has the expenditure been incurred only because what business?
- Does he have direct impact To get revenue?
- Can you go Reasonably Business needs?
The Bankier.pl portal warns that attempts to throw individual expenses into company costs may end not only with refusal but besides with additional consequences. The IRS may challenge another positions in the settlement and initiate control. It is safer to stick to clearly defined cost categories and, in case of doubt, to consult an accountant or to apply for an individual explanation – as the legal counsel did, although in his case the effect was negative.
A clear signal for professionals: appearance is simply a private matter
The case of the Warsaw lawyer will surely be remembered in the public trust competition. It shows how far a creative explanation of taxation rules can go and where the limit between individual and corporate expenditure goes. Although the argument based on the Code of Professional Ethics was different and courageous, the IRS remained unrelenting. For another professionals, where the appearance and presentation are crucial – doctors, notaries, architects – it is simply a clear signal: the presence, although crucial professionally, remains a private substance in the eyes of the fiscal officer.
Ultimately, the lawyer will gotta pay for implants from his own pocket, as millions of another Poles do. And his case has become a valuable informing to all who dream of throwing private medical expenses into corporate costs. This is simply a lesson that can prevent many entrepreneurs from unnecessary problems with the taxation Office in 2025 and later.
Continued here:
Tooth implants on the house? lawyer tried, fiscally warned: this is the way to control!
