After years of anticipation, the Polish Ministry of Finance has finally published official tax clarifications on the application of the “beneficial owner” clause in the context of withholding tax (WHT). The document, dated July 3, 2025 (and released on July 9), marks a significant milestone in the ongoing effort to bring clarity to one of the most complex areas of Polish tax law.

But does it truly resolve all the uncertainties — or are we still left with more questions than answers?

Have a question or need support?

Contact us

WHT in Poland: A Long Road to Clarity

Withholding tax has become one of the most sensitive and controversial areas of Polish tax law in recent years. Although the revised WHT rules technically came into force on January 1, 2019, their full implementation was repeatedly postponed. The new regime introduced sweeping changes, including the “pay and refund” mechanism, stricter due diligence obligations for remitters, and a broader definition of the beneficial owner.

The evolving rules and lack of clear guidance created a climate of legal uncertainty that affected not only domestic taxpayers but also foreign investors — particularly those from other EU countries — who watched the situation unfold with growing concern. Many cross-border payments became subject to heightened scrutiny, and the risk of disputes with tax authorities increased significantly.

Despite the scale of the reform, uncertainty persisted. The Ministry’s first attempt to clarify the rules came in 2019, followed by a revised draft in 2023. However, neither version provided the level of guidance taxpayers and remitters were hoping for. Meanwhile, tax authorities adopted an increasingly strict and formalistic approach, leading to a surge in audits, denials of preferential treatment, and inconsistent court rulings. As a result, Poland’s WHT regime became a source of ongoing tension and unpredictability in the international tax landscape.

The Final Guidelines: First Impressions

Unlike previous drafts, the July 2025 document is final and therefore offers legal protection to taxpayers who follow its guidance, as stipulated in the Polish Tax Ordinance. This is a crucial development, as it shields compliant taxpayers from negative consequences — even if future interpretations change.

The document spans a wide range of key issues, including the “look-through” approach and the types of payments subject to beneficial owner verification. It also includes numerous practical examples — a welcome addition for practitioners seeking concrete guidance.

Positive Highlights: A Step Toward Greater Clarity

While the new guidelines may not resolve every ambiguity, they introduce several meaningful improvements that deserve recognition — especially in light of the uncertainty that has surrounded the Polish WHT regime in recent years.

Perhaps the most impactful change is the formal acknowledgment of the look-through approach (LTA). This concept, long used in practice but never officially endorsed, allows for a more nuanced assessment of cross-border payments. Rather than disqualifying a transaction simply because funds pass through an intermediary, the LTA enables tax authorities and taxpayers to identify the true economic beneficiary behind the payment — a crucial development for international structures.

Equally important is the introduction of a presumption of beneficial ownership in certain cases. While this doesn’t eliminate the need for documentation, it offers a welcome simplification. Taxpayers who meet specific criteria may no longer need to prove beneficial ownership from scratch in every instance — a change that could significantly reduce the compliance burden and the number of disputes with tax authorities.

Another noteworthy innovation is the group-level assessment of economic substance. Rather than evaluating the recipient entity in isolation, the guidelines now allow for a consolidated view of business activity across a corporate group. This broader perspective reflects the operational reality of many multinational enterprises and could help prevent overly narrow interpretations that penalize legitimate business models.

Unresolved Issues: Where the Guidelines Still Fall Short

Despite being a long-awaited and much-needed step forward, the new WHT guidelines leave several important questions unanswered.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the document is its own disclaimer: some of the mechanisms described — including consolidated substance and the look-through approach — are not binding on tax authorities. This caveat casts doubt on the reliability of the guidelines as a tool for legal certainty.

Another significant omission is the lack of reference to the principle of proportionality. The guidelines fail to confirm that tax benefits should only be denied in cases involving abuse of law. This is a serious oversight, especially considering that proportionality is a fundamental principle in EU law and has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The guidelines also fall short in providing clear criteria for assessing economic substance. While they allow substance to be evaluated at the group level, they do not define what that means in practice. This ambiguity creates risk — particularly for multinational groups relying on legitimate business models — and leaves room for inconsistent enforcement.

Finally, the interpretation of EU directives, particularly the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, raises concerns. The guidelines impose a requirement for dividend recipients to qualify as “beneficial owners” — a condition not explicitly stated in the directive itself. This could lead to domestic interpretations overriding EU law, potentially violating the principle of EU law supremacy and increasing legal uncertainty for cross-border transactions.

Conclusion: A Step Forward, But the Path Remains Unclear

The release of the final WHT guidelines marks a long-awaited and meaningful development in Poland’s evolving tax landscape. It reflects a growing willingness by the Ministry of Finance to engage with market realities and align domestic practice with international standards. The formal recognition of mechanisms like the look-through approach and the introduction of certain simplifications are clear signs of progress.

Yet, for all its merits, the document stops short of delivering the clarity and certainty many had hoped for. Vague language, the absence of key legal principles such as proportionality, and disclaimers that limit the binding nature of the guidance all contribute to a lingering sense of uncertainty. For taxpayers, the question remains: do these guidelines offer real protection — or simply shift the burden of interpretation to a new level?

As always, the true impact will depend on how the guidelines are applied in practice. Until then, cautious optimism may be the most realistic stance.