Settlement of robotisation tax relief – one-off deduction or depreciation write-offs?

The Act does not refer directly to depreciation

As a reminder, the robotisation tax relief allows taxpayers to deduct from the tax base 50% of tax-deductible costs incurred for robotisation.

The CIT Act defines the costs treated as tax-deductible costs incurred for robotisation. These include, among others, the costs of acquiring brand-new industrial robots and the costs of acquiring machinery and peripheral equipment related to such robots.

The interpretation of the phrase “costs of acquisition” has proved problematic. According to the Polish Language Dictionary, “to acquire” means to obtain something as one’s property in exchange for money, i.e. to buy.

The tax authorities take the view that, in the case of the acquisition of a robot, robotisation costs are depreciation write-offs. This is because the acquisition price of a fixed asset is, as a rule, recognised as a tax-deductible cost through depreciation. Therefore, for the purposes of the robotisation tax relief, the qualifying cost should be 50% of each depreciation write-off made from the initial value of the industrial robot.

For example, in an individual tax ruling of 3 March 2026, ref. 0114-KDIP2-1.4010.708.2025.2.KW, the Director of the National Revenue Information Service stated that:

The regulations concerning robotisation tax relief indicate that you could not / will not be able to deduct from the tax base, on a one-off basis, 50% of the expenses incurred for the acquisition of the Robot indicated in the application in the year of its purchase, because you did not recognise / will not recognise the expenses incurred in connection with its acquisition as a tax-deductible cost on a one-off basis, but through depreciation write-offs made over a longer period of time.

In the cited ruling, the authority challenged the taxpayer’s position that the “costs of acquisition” of an industrial robot should simply be understood as its acquisition price within the meaning of Article 16g(3) of the CIT Act. Under that provision, the acquisition price is the amount due to the seller, increased by costs related to the purchase accrued until the fixed asset is put into use, and reduced by VAT.

In other words, the taxpayer treated “costs of acquisition” as one-off expenses incurred on the acquired equipment. This would also result in a one-off deduction of the relief. This approach has also been adopted by most administrative courts.

According to the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań, in its judgment of 10 June 2025, ref. I SA/Po 167/25:

(…) the authority’s position that only depreciation write-offs should be deductible from the tax base is unjustified. Depreciation write-offs do not determine the acquisition of a given asset; rather, they reflect the allocation over time of expenses incurred for the acquisition of a specific asset. In the case of fixed assets, the expense incurred for their acquisition is made earlier, while the settlement of that expense as tax-deductible costs takes place after the acquisition through depreciation write-offs.

Similarly, the Provincial Administrative Court in Lublin, in its judgment of 21 November 2025, ref. I SA/Lu 432/25, held that:

(…) the authority’s position regarding the possibility of deducting robotisation costs by increasing depreciation write-offs and referring robotisation tax relief to the rules governing depreciation of fixed assets is incorrect. The interpretation presented by the authority would be contrary to the grammatical interpretation of the provisions regulating robotisation tax relief. (…) It is also relevant that the interpretation of the provisions regulating robotisation tax relief described above is supported by the rationale behind their introduction, namely the need for a rapid development of the economy in this area. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that the taxpayer’s position on the special, preferential method of recognising robotisation expenses as costs and the right to deduct, in the year of acquisition of the robots, 50% of the expenses under Article 38eb of the Act as tax-deductible costs incurred for robotisation should be accepted.

A different view was taken by the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław in its judgment of 16 March 2026, ref. I SA/Wr 658/25. The Court held that depreciation write-offs should be taken into account when calculating the amount of the relief, i.e. the amount equal to 50% of tax-deductible costs incurred in a tax year for robotisation and deducted from the tax base. In this case, the Court agreed with the tax authorities.

Poznań precedent – the method of settling robotisation tax relief is the taxpayer’s choice

To date, administrative court judgments have generally focused on whether the relief may be settled on a one-off basis rather than through depreciation write-offs. An interesting position, not previously expressed by either courts or tax authorities, was taken by the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań in its judgment of 22 April 2026, ref. I SA/Po 301/26.

The Court held that the provisions do not impose a single method of settling the robotisation tax relief. Therefore, the taxpayer may choose the method of settlement.

This means that, even in 2026, the taxpayer may decide to settle the relief on a one-off basis. Importantly, if the relief is settled through depreciation write-offs, 2026 is not a cut-off date after which the right to the relief expires. If depreciation started in 2026, the taxpayer may continue making additional deductions based on depreciation write-offs also after the end of that year, until the relief to which it is entitled is fully used. This applies even though the robotisation tax relief itself will cease to apply at the end of 2026.

The Provincial Administrative Court justified this approach by referring to the principle of equal treatment of taxpayers. Otherwise, taxpayers depreciating robots over a longer period extending beyond 2026 could effectively be deprived of the possibility of fully benefiting from the preference.

Why does the dispute over the meaning of “costs of acquisition” matter for taxpayers?

This issue is not limited to a theoretical discussion on the interpretation of the Act. It has significant practical importance.

The robotisation tax relief is a temporary solution, available in the years 2022–2026. If the costs of acquiring a robot are understood as tax costs resulting from depreciation write-offs, the relief may cover depreciation write-offs made on fixed assets acquired before the relief entered into force, provided that those costs are incurred within the period specified in the Act.

However, the same approach also means that the later an industrial robot is acquired, the shorter the depreciation period that may be taken into account for the relief. As a result, the effectiveness of the relief may be lower — subject to the approach resulting from the Poznań judgment discussed above.

By contrast, the one-off settlement approach appears to raise fewer doubts. If the purchase was made within the period 2022–2026, the relief is settled once.

The provisions concerning the robotisation tax relief do not contain wording that would support the tax authorities’ position that depreciation write-offs should be treated as qualifying costs. The Act precisely indicates which robotisation expenses constitute “tax-deductible costs”. These are “costs of acquisition”, i.e. the costs of purchasing the equipment as such. From this perspective, the interpretation presented by the tax authorities cannot be accepted, as it does not correspond to the literal wording of the Act.

In practice, the approach presented by the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań makes it possible to move beyond this dispute without definitively determining which method is correct. This is because the provisions do not clearly specify how the relief should be settled. It should be borne in mind, however, that this is currently an isolated ruling.