Transfer Pricing guide: Poland
Read below for more detailed information on transfer pricing regulations, document requirements, and other considerations Poland, as well as recent industry hot topics and key developments in the country's business landscape.
Page updated 1st July 2026
Transfer Pricing regulations
Is the jurisdiction part of OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS?
Yes.
Relevant Transfer Pricing regulation
The Polish Corporate Income Tax Law and Personal Income Tax Law, along with several other decrees, regulate the content of tax documentation and the transfer pricing methods, as well as benchmarking. The separate Act on the exchange of tax information with other countries applies to CbC reporting.
Is this regulation aligned with the OECD Guidelines
Yes.
Transfer Pricing documentation requirements
Documentation Threshold for Preparation of Local File/ TP Documentation
The thresholds are as follows: PLN 10 million for transactions concerning goods and financial transactions; PLN 2 million for services; and PLN 2 million for other transactions not previously mentioned. For tax havens, the thresholds are as follows: PLN 2.5 million for financial transactions and PLN 0.5 million for all other transactions. These thresholds apply separately to sales and purchases.
Documentation Threshold for Preparation of Master File
PLN 200 million (the obligation to prepare MF only for entities required to prepare LF.)
Documentation Threshold for Preparation of Country by Country Report
PLN 3,250 million - in the case of capital groups preparing consolidated financial statements in Polish zloty (PLN),
EUR 750 million - or the equivalent of this amount converted according to:
The rules specified by the country or territory in which the parent company has its registered office or management board - in the case of a capital group whose parent company has its registered office or management board outside the territory of the Republic of Poland,
The last exchange rate published by the European Central Bank on the last day of the financial year preceding the reporting financial year - if:
a capital group in which the parent company has its registered office or management board in the territory of the Republic of Poland, prepares consolidated financial statements in a currency other than PLN,
the country or territory referred to in point (a), did not specify the rules for converting this amount.
Submission of Local File, Master File, and CbC Report Required? If so, when?
Local and master files: no submission is required, but they are available on request. CbC report: Three months after the end of the group of entities' financial year.
If No Submission Required, any Other Deadline?
The deadline for preparing the local file is: 10 months after the end of the tax year. The deadline for preparing the master file is: 12 months after the end of the tax year.
Other Documentation Requirements
Transfer pricing specific returns (see sections below).
Does TP documentation / Local file Need to be Prepared Contemporaneously with Tax Return Filing (i.e., before filing the return)?
No
Transfer Pricing Specific Returns
Preparation of TP Return Required?
Yes, TPR form.
Deadline for TP Return Filing
11 months after the end of the tax year
Key information to be included in the TP Return
This includes financial information about the taxpayer, the nature and amount of transactions, the country of residence of related parties and benchmarking data for all types of transfer pricing (TP) transactions, as well as the type of method applied.
Benchmarking - Local Tax Authority Preferences
Local vs Regional Comparables Set
Ideally, the set should be local, but regional sets are accepted if local sets are not available or comparable.
Single-Year vs Multi-Year Analysis
There are no regulations, but in practice, at least three years of analysis are required.
Public vs Private Comparables
Either is accepted, depending on the nature of the transaction and the method used.
Interquartile Range or Full Range
Interquartile range, full range in extreme situations only.
Transaction-Based or Aggregate Approach, or Both
A transaction-based approach is preferred, but an aggregate approach could be employed if it is more suitable for the transaction.
How Often are Benchmarking Sets Renewed (financial update versus full scope BMS preparation)
This should be done every three years, unless the economic environment changes. In the latter case, a new benchmarking report will be prepared for the year in which the change occurs.
TP Penalties
In Case of Delayed Submission of Documentation
Failure to submit the TPR form, Local File or Master File within the statutory deadlines may result in fiscal penal liability under the Polish Fiscal Penal Code (KKS). Penalties may be imposed both on the taxpayer and on individuals responsible for transfer pricing compliance, including management board members and finance officers.
Under the regulations applicable in 2026:
- failure to prepare transfer pricing documentation or preparing documentation inconsistent with the actual state of affairs may be punished with a fine of up to 720 daily penalty units,
- late submission may be punished with a fine of up to 240 daily penalty units,
- similar sanctions apply to failure to file the TPR form or filing incorrect TPR data.
Because the value of daily penalty units changes annually, the maximum financial exposure also changes every year. In 2026, the maximum penalties may reach approximately PLN 46 million for the most serious offences.
In case of Income Adjustments in Course of a Tax audit
If the tax authorities determine during a tax audit that related-party transactions were not conducted on arm’s length terms, they may adjust the taxpayer’s taxable income or tax loss. Such adjustments may result in additional corporate income tax liabilities together with statutory interest for late payment.
In 2026, the Polish tax authorities continue to intensify data-driven transfer pricing audits, with particular focus on:
- inconsistencies between TPR filings, financial statements and accounting records,
- intra-group financing transactions,
- management and other intangible services,
- recurring losses or unusually low profitability,
- insufficient benchmarking studies or lack of economic substance.
The absence of reliable transfer pricing documentation significantly increases the risk of tax reassessments and may additionally trigger fiscal penal proceedings against individuals responsible for transfer pricing compliance.
Other Considerations
APA & MAP Availability
Both APA and MAP are available
Applicability of Safe Harbour Rules
The safe harbour rules apply to loan transactions and transactions involving low-value services.
Critical Transfer Pricing Issues Prevailing in the Jurisdiction, if any
Transfer pricing audits are most often initiated against entities that, inter alia have a loss for more than one tax year, have low profitability contrary to sectoral trends, incur high costs for group support services, have a high proportion of debt to finance their operations and incur a loss despite a routine functional profile. The most common transfer pricing disputes relate to profitability in production models, costs of central purchasing functions, recharacterisation of licensing transactions and the treatment of individual financial transactions.
Criteria/ Guidelines for Transfer Pricing Audit/ Assessments by Tax Authority
Criteria/ Guidelines for Transfer Pricing Audit/ Assessments by Tax Authority are not published. Documents published by the Polish Ministry of Finance and consultation bodies only have unofficial guideline status. In practice, the OECD's reports, the BEPS project and the EU's guidelines are considered more reliable.
Relevant Regulations and Rulings with Respect to Thin Capitalisation or Debt Capacity in the Jurisdiction
There is an obligation to exclude from tax costs that part of the costs of debt financing to the extent that the excess of the costs of debt financing exceeds 30% of EBITDA (the company's profit before depreciation, taxes and interest) or the amount of PLN 3 million, whichever is higher.
Meet the experts
Wherever your business operates, HLB's specialists combine local expertise with global collaboration to deliver practical advice, helping organisations navigate challenges, seize opportunities and achieve their ambitions.
-
There have been no fundamental changes to the Polish transfer pricing framework. Current developments mainly concern court judgments, tax authority practice and increasing audit activity focused on data analytics and TPR reporting consistency.
-
Increasing use of TPR data analytics and cross-checking of transfer pricing disclosures with financial statements, SAF-T/JPK data and benchmark results continues to be one of the key focus areas of the Polish tax authorities.
-
A new legislative proposal introduces a simplification in the way Transfer Pricing Information (TPR) is reported - but also shifts more responsibility to the Local File. According to the proposal:
-
The TPR form will no longer include the statement confirming that:
-
the local TP documentation is prepared in line with actual transactions, and
-
transfer prices are set at arm’s length
-
-
Instead, this statement will be part of the Local File (LF) as an additional formal element
-
The Local File will need to be signed by the head of the entity
-
-
The most interesting verdicts were as follows:
1. On 14 March 2024 the court determined that the amount of revenue from a loan guarantee provided free of charge could be estimated by tax authorities. The court determined that it was correct to estimate the arm’s length fee for a guarantee based on the data on the fees charged for guarantees provided for similar period and amounts, which the customs and tax control office obtained from financial institutions, accounting for the institutions’ geographies.
2. The judgement of 23 January 2024 shows how important it is for the agreements for the provision of services between associated enterprises and the documentation of the benefits of such services for the taxpayer that is charged the costs of such services to be properly prepared. In the referenced case, the taxpayer did not have any official licensing agreements (to use the trademarks) or agreements that would set out the precise scope of services that the taxpayer received, despite participating in the costs of the head office. The tax authorities questioned the cost under Article 15 of the CIT Act and determined that it was not tax-deductible. The court also determined that the taxpayer should keep detailed documentation of the benefits of the services that the taxpayer had received from the associated enterprises and the rights they had been given.
3. In its judgement of 3 October 2024 the court agreed with the tax authorities that:
-
the taxpayer’s operating profitability in transactions with associated enterprises should have been aligned with the median for comparable companies,
-
when using the transactional net margin method, the company should have accounted for the direct and indirect costs as well as general costs and selling expenses.
-
The majority of individual tax rulings were about the mandatory documentation requirement. Especially noteworthy are those in which taxpayers requested that the authorities confirm that the taxpayers can be exempted from the obligation with regard to transactions between domestic entities which have not incurred a tax loss and which do not claim a CIT exemption due to operating in a special economic zone.
Transfer pricing audits are most often initiated against entities that, inter alia have a loss for more than one tax year, have low profitability contrary to sectoral trends, incur high costs for group support services, have a high proportion of debt to finance their operations and incur a loss despite a routine functional profile.
The selection of entities to be audited is getting increasingly effective, and if only one of the above conditions is satisfied, the probability of an audit and subsequent upward adjustment to income becomes much higher.
Audit functions are more often taken over by units which, according to the tax administration reform, were supposed to be ‘super-authorities’ with the competence to carry out particularly difficult substantive controls aimed at controlling entire supply chains, regardless of the taxpayer's place of residence.
In 2025, the Polish tax authorities continued to intensify transfer pricing enforcement using increasingly sophisticated risk assessment and data analytics tools. Although the overall number of audits did not materially increase, the effectiveness of audits resulting in upward income adjustments continued to rise.
According to publicly available analyses of Ministry of Finance data, the total value of income adjustments identified in transfer pricing audits in 2024 almost doubled compared to 2023, while in the first half of 2025 the value of identified irregularities already exceeded levels observed in prior years. The majority of significant adjustments continue to be identified in customs and fiscal audits conducted by specialised units of the National Revenue Administration (KAS).
Advance Pricing Arrangement
APA in Poland can be structured in three ways, depending on the scope of the intercompany transactions and the involvement of tax authorities in other countries:
-
Unilateral APA – Issued by the Head of the National Tax Administration, covering transactions between domestic related entities or between a domestic and a foreign related entity.
-
Bilateral or Multilateral APA – Concluded between the Head of the National Tax Administration and the competent authority of another jurisdiction, ensuring that both related parties to the same transaction are subject to an aligned transfer pricing method under a mutual agreement procedure.
The fee for an APA application is calculated as 1% of the value of the covered transactions but is subject to specific thresholds:
-
Unilateral APA:
-
Involving exclusively domestic related entities: no less than PLN 5,000 and no more than PLN 50,000;
-
Involving a foreign related entity: no less than PLN 20.000 and no more than PLN 100,000.
-
-
Bilateral or Multilateral APA: no less than PLN 50,000 and no more than PLN 200,000.
An APA in Poland remains in effect for up to five tax years. After this period, the agreement may be renewed through a simplified APA procedure, provided that its key elements—such as the tested party, pricing method, or market price – have not undergone significant changes.
In practice, APA proceedings in Poland may last significantly longer than the statutory deadlines, especially in bilateral and multilateral cases.
Mutual Agreement Procedure
In order to eliminate double taxation on the income of related entities, a domestic entity may apply to the Minister of Finance for the initiation of a MAP based on:
- Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises,
- Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs), to which the Republic of Poland is a party.
The Decree regarding MAP procedure specifies the elements that the application should contain. These include i.a.:
- a description of the facts of the case,
- copies of tax decisions, tax audit protocols or other documents evidencing double taxation;
- justification for the application,
- statement by the domestic entity that it is ready to provide the Minister with all documentation and any information that may affect the outcome of the case.
The application should be submitted no later than three years from the date of delivery of the tax audit protocol or tax decision to the taxpayer or its related party, unless the DTA sets a different date. The mutual agreement procedure are generally expected to be completed within two years.
Alignment with OECD Guidelines
-
Poland is the OECD member country.
-
The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines are no part of the Polish law, however, they are used as an explanatory instrument.
-
Polish regulations are in line with the OECD Guidelines.
-
The tax authorities refer to the OECD Guidelines when applying transfer pricing principles
-
the transfer pricing methods accepted by the tax authorities are based on the OECD Guidelines
-
Poland adopted the OECD three-tiered approach to transfer pricing documentation (with some local specifics), i.e. local file, master file and CbC.
Benchmarking Analyses Nuances or Preferences
-
The Polish tax authorities will expect to see that a search for potential internal comparables has taken place before defaulting to an external database search for comparables
-
The Polish tax authorities prefer local comparables (if available), in particular in the case that the benchmarking study is for a Polish entity only.
-
The Polish tax authorities generally accept the regional benchmarking studies, in particular pan-European ones (assuming that the comparability criteria are met).
-
The local documentation (Local File) may not contain the transfer pricing analysis in the case of controlled transactions concluded by related parties that are micro or small businesses according to Act of 6 March 2018 - Entrepreneurs' Law and for non-controlled transactions with entities from so called "tax havens".
Thin Capitalisation Considerations for Intercompany Loans
-
Poland no longer applies traditional thin capitalisation rules. Instead, interest deductibility is limited under the debt financing costs limitation regime.
-
Taxpayers are required to exclude from tax-deductible expenses the excess debt financing costs to the extent that such excess exceeds the higher of:
- PLN 3 million, or
- 30% of tax EBITDA. -
The limitation applies to both related-party and third-party financing.
Transfer Pricing Primary Risk Areas in Jurisdiction
-
The most common transfer pricing disputes relate to profitability in production models, costs of central purchasing functions, recharacterisation of licensing transactions and the treatment of individual financial transactions.
-
The main difficulties from the taxpayer's perspective include the completeness of transfer pricing documentation in relation to detailed Polish regulations or a correctly filled out TPR form.
-
Comparative analyses that are supposed to demonstrate the market nature of transactions are also very often verified and questioned. The authorities also demand evidence of the actual nature of the transaction or verify the profiles of counterparties. Taxpayers are also at risk of recharacterisation of transactions, and any activity that evokes associations with restructuring is of particular interest to controllers.
-
intra-group financing, management fees / low-value adding services, DEMPE / IP-related structures, inconsistencies between TPR forms and statutory financial statements.
