The new real estate tax regulations in Poland, in force since the beginning of 2025, introduce significant changes that largely respond to business community demands. However, they still leave considerable ambiguity regarding what qualifies as a “building” versus a “structure,” which in turn affects tax rates and obligations.
“I would expect the Ministry of Finance to listen to calls for clarification and, hopefully, introduce some amendments within the next six months or at the beginning of next year,” says Dr. Adam Kałążny, legal advisor and associate partner at Deloitte.
New Definitions: Building vs. Structure
“Until the end of 2024, the Construction Law played a key role in determining what was subject to property tax,” explains Paweł Banasik, Deloitte partner and leader of the property tax team.
“That has changed. We now have new definitions of buildings and structures, and an annex to the law that outlines what is taxable.”
Under the revised law, a structure is defined as any object made (rather than built, as before) using construction materials listed in the annex. This also includes installations and equipment functionally integrated with the structure.
A building, on the other hand, must meet four conditions:
- Constructed as part of a building process
- Permanently attached to the land
- Enclosed with structural barriers
- Equipped with both a foundation and a roof
Objects defined primarily by their storage capacity—such as silos or tanks—no longer qualify as buildings.
Benefits and Gray Areas
“The main benefit is a clearer list of taxable items,” said Banasik during the IX Tax Council Congress of the Lewiatan Confederation.
“By moving away from Construction Law—which has its own logic—the new law could provide greater transparency.”
The revision follows a 2023 Constitutional Tribunal ruling, which declared the previous definition of “structure” unconstitutional. For years, courts had to step in to determine how to classify specific properties—often delaying tax obligations or leading to inconsistent rulings.
Still, experts warn the new definitions do not eliminate uncertainty.
“The distinction between buildings and structures is still not fully clear. And the issue of installations inside buildings or various technical devices remains open to interpretation,” Banasik noted.
“We expect administrative courts will continue to play a crucial role.”
Ambiguities in Key Terms
A major gray area is the definition of a building’s “permanent attachment to the land”, which is essential for determining tax liability. The term suggests that the object must be stable and able to resist external forces. However, the law lacks precision, which complicates tax decisions for container units, tent halls, and similar structures often used in logistics and industry.
“Whether or not a structure is ‘permanently attached’ can determine if it’s taxable,” says Dr. Kałążny.
“This is especially important for modern industrial operations that increasingly rely on non-permanent infrastructure.”
What About “Technical Devices”?
Another vague element is the term “technical devices” that are directly related to and necessary for the building’s function. This could lead to new taxes on previously untaxed equipment.
Business groups have also raised concerns about the term “freestanding, permanently attached industrial installation”, which is broad enough to potentially include all device systems at industrial facilities.
“We still need clarity on how to tax different types of tanks,” Kałążny added.
“While the law is clearer than before, the tax treatment of high-value process tanks in industrial facilities is still uncertain. This creates financial anxiety for businesses.”
A Step Forward, But More Work Needed
While the new rules are a step in the right direction, they remain incomplete.
“This is only a partial solution,” Kałążny emphasized.
“The finish line is still far off. I hope the Ministry of Finance will remain open to further refinement and adopt amendments that make the law more understandable and consistent.”
