You got that in the yard? Offices are already sending calls. Many Poles pay a fresh tax

Since the beginning of 2025, 1 of the largest real property taxation reforms has been in force in years. The amendments aimed at simplifying the rules and ending multi-annual explanation disputes between taxpayers and taxation offices. Despite good intentions, the amendment introduced fresh doubts, and the taxation strategy began to look more closely at objects that have so far frequently avoided taxation. The owners of popular “blastacs” and akin constructions may be unpleasantly surprised, as any municipalities have already begun sending calls for payment. The problem concerns thousands of Poles who do not realize that an object in their backyard can make a taxation obligation.

Key confusion comes from new, more precise definitions of "building" and "building". It is up to the correct qualification whether the garage, warehouse or the planet will gotta pay the tax. The fresh rules, although to be clear, in practice opened the field to different interpretations by local authorities, leading to unequal treatment of taxpayers depending on their place of residence.

Great real property taxation reform. Where did the fresh regulations come from?

The Constitutional Court's ruling was an impulse to make changes, which considered the existing regulations unconstitutional. The deficiency of precise definitions led to a situation where the same facility could be classified differently by different offices in the country. The legislature decided to put an end to these disputes erstwhile and for all, introducing new, detailed definitions into the Act on Local Taxes and Fees.

The main nonsubjective of the improvement was establishment of clear and unambiguous criteriawhich would let for the seamless assignment of each building site to the applicable taxation category. This was intended to destruct the discretion of officials and guarantee that taxpayers were predictable. However, during the legislative work, taxation experts warned that even the most precise definitions could in practice make further explanation problems. As it turned out, their fears were right.

The fresh regulations, which entered into force since January 2025, led to the creation of a "grey zone" of objects that do not fit perfectly either the definition of a building or buildings. It was these structures that became the mark of a thorough analysis of the offices, which search additional gross for local budgets. As a result, alternatively of simplification, many Poles now request to carefully analyse the legal position of objects on their property.

Building or building? Key difference to decide the tax

Under the fresh regulations, to make the facility considered buildingit must meet respective conditions in total. It must be permanently bound to the ground, have foundations, be separated from space by building partitions and have a roof. Importantly, the legislator introduced an exception: facilities intended for the collection of bulk, liquid or gaseous materials, specified as silos, are not considered to be buildings even if they meet the above criteria.

In turn construction is any building that is not a building but is listed in a peculiar annex to the Act or is of a method nature. This category includes installations, equipment, machinery foundations, power plants and container facilities. This discrimination is fundamental to the taxpayer's portfolio. Why? Since buildings are taxed on their useful space, while buildings – on their value, but crucially, construction taxation is paid only if it is linked to the pursuit of economical activity.

This subtle but highly crucial difference is the origin of all the confusion. If the building on our land is classified as a building and we don't run a company, we shouldn't pay the tax. The problem arises erstwhile officials effort to interpret regulations in favour of the municipality.

A popular “glass” in the fire of questions. Who has to pay the tax?

The biggest controversy is caused by the popular tin garages in Poland, i.e. the alleged “blasters”. These light structures, frequently without permanent foundations, stand on thousands of private property and service as a parking space for the car, a tool compartment or a tiny warehouse. According to the fresh definition, a ‘glass’ without foundations is not a building.

However, here is the problem of interpretation. In the explanatory memorandum to the draft amendment, the legislator indicated that specified an object could be treated as containerwhich is listed in the Annex as a building. It opens the door to taxation. What are the consequences in practice?

• “Blaszak” utilized in the company: If an entrepreneur puts a tin garage on his game and uses it for corporate purposes (e.g. as a warehouse for goods, retention of tools), the taxation office may qualify it as a building and charge a taxation on its value.
• ‘Blaszak’ for private purposes: If the same ‘glass’ stands on a private property and serves only for individual purposes (e.g. garageing a private car), should not be taxed. This is clear from the rule that only economical buildings are taxed.

The problem is that any local governments effort to bend these rules. Officials may argue that any utilitarian object, even on a private plot, should be included in the tribute, which is incompatible with the spirit of the bill. It is these overzealous interpretations that are the reason for sending calls for payment to individuals.

Different interpretations in municipalities. How to avoid a surprise from a tax?

This year's reform, alternatively of harmonising the system, led to even more chaos in any respects. The owners of the ‘blasts’ and akin structures were in a precarious situation, since the final decision to impose the taxation depends on the explanation of the local municipal office. In 1 municipality, an authoritative may consider that a private garage is not subject to taxation, while a taxation investigation may be initiated in the neighbouring municipality.

What to do in specified a situation? The most crucial thing is proactive action. alternatively of waiting for a possible call to pay, it is worth explaining the substance yourself. Recommended submission of a request to the municipality or city office to interpret the rules for a peculiar facility on our plot. It is worth describing in specified a letter the plan (no foundations, way of planting) and its intent (only private purposes, not related to economical activity).

Having an authoritative answer of its own may supply valuable protection against possible future taxation attempts. It should be borne in head that ignorance of the law does not exempt from its observance, and in the event of a dispute with the tax, the payer frequently has the burden of proving his reasons. Therefore, it is so crucial to make certain that the fresh regulations are applied in our area and to defend yourself from a financial surprise.