On January 21, 2026, the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw issued a judgment (III SA/Wa 2178/25) in which it overturned an individual interpretation unfavorable to the taxpayer regarding the robotization relief (ref. no. 0114-KDIP2-1.4010.328.2025.2. KW).

​

The case concerned (i) the recognition of a packaging line as an industrial robot, (ii) and the possibility of a one-off settlement of the robotization relief.

​

The packaging line consisted of a manipulator and three other devices functionally related to it.

In the opinion of the Director of the National Tax Information Service, the packaging line is not an industrial robot, because Article 38eb(3) of the CIT Act clearly refers to a robot as a machine integrated with other machines/devices in the production cycle, and not to a set of machines and devices that include robots. The Director of the National Tax Information Service also stated that the line responsible for automatic packaging and palletizing cannot be considered multi-purpose. As a result of not recognizing the line as a robot, the Director of the National Tax Information Service considered that the answer to the question concerning the one-off settlement of the relief was irrelevant.

​

As a result of the arguments presented at the hearing, the Court, guided by a purposive interpretation, indicated in the oral justification of the judgment that:

​

1.   The content and purpose of Article 38eb(3) of the CIT Act do not indicate that only a single machine (and not a set of functionally related devices) can be considered a robot. In economic practice, devices of this type do not operate independently and must be supported by other devices, as reflected in Article 38eb(4) of the CIT Act, which provides an example catalog of peripheral devices for a robot. It is irrelevant whether a given device is considered a robot or a peripheral device associated with it.

​

2.   The purpose of introducing the robotization relief was to automate technological processes and increase productivity, and thus future tax revenues, which will have a positive impact on the State Treasury. Therefore, the right to benefit from this relief should not be artificially restricted.

​

3.   A robot that performs automatic packaging and palletizing is a multi-task robot. This is supported by the fact that it can be programmed to perform multiple functions. This fact is not negated by the fact that at a given moment the robot was programmed to perform a specific task.

​

The complaint was prepared by Paweł Kossecki and Karol Wadełek, and the client was represented in court by Paweł Kossecki.

​

​