The lawyers confirm that the tax authorities order the payers of dividends to exercise due diligence when verifying the status of the beneficial owner, which was usually oppos by the administrative courts. However, once a judgment has been issu, litigation is more likely to fail. It’s a big problem. The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court may mean that the level of verification activities currently us by companies to meet the due diligence requirements in the field of verification of the beneficial owner may no longer be sufficient to ensure that they can exercise the right to exemption pricts Damian Kaczyński. The expert also points out that despite the recent changes in the withholding tax regulations.

The rules for its settlement are still

Unclear not only for taxpayers, but also for administrative courts. Read in LEX Documentation obligations relat to withholding tax collection Read in LEX Limitation of withholding tax on dividends Polish double taxation agreements Taiyuan Mobile Phone Number List Unclear withholding tax rules This causes a significant increase in the level of uncertainty of taxpayers. Especially since, as remind by Piotr Prokocki, legal advisor , tax advisor, head of the tax practice at Penteris, the latest decision of the Supreme Administrative Court is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of April , case number II FSK recently issu judgments of provincial administrative courts including the judgment of the Provincial.

Administrative Court in of October

Reference number I SA/Łd Check in LEX Dividend payment taxation step by step GUIDE According to these rulings, there is no obligation to verify the beneficial owner status when applying the withholding tax exemption on dividends. At the same BTC Database EU time, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court sanctions the practice us in recent years by the tax authorities. We do not yet know the written justification of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment. Nevertheless, the correctness of the decision made therein raises serious doubts. The requirement to have the status of the actual owner has not been formulat in the provisions regulating.