Do Polish and foreign self-balancing branches have to report JPK_CIT?

The mandatory move to electronic accounting records and JPK_CIT reporting aimed primarily to standardize data, facilitate remote audits, and eventually enable “Your e-CIT” services.

Article 9(1) and (1c) of the CIT Act were originally designed for Polish accounting and tax rules. However, early rulings on foreign self-balancing branches created a risk of double bookkeeping and compliance burdens that the law never intended. Only a 2026 change in the approach of the Director of the National Revenue Information Service (KIS) restored the system’s logic and purpose.

Why was JPK_CIT introduced?

The 2021 “Polish Deal” act introduced Article 9(1c) of the CIT Act. Under this provision, taxpayers who keep accounting records:

• are required to keep them using computer software, and
• must submit them to the tax office in an electronic format matching the required logical structure (in practice, the JPK_KR_PD and JPK_ST_KR formats).

According to the bill’s explanatory memorandum, the main goals were to:

• enable tax authorities to verify tax settlements remotely;
• reduce the number of on-site audits;
• collect data needed for “Your e-PIT / e-CIT” services;
• improve tax administration efficiency without increasing the taxpayer’s formal burdens beyond what substantive law requires.

It is worth noting Article 9(1) of the CIT Act, which requires taxpayers to keep accounting records “in accordance with separate provisions”. In the Polish legal system, these “separate provisions” primarily refer to the Accounting Act (specifically Articles 2, 11, and 24).

This means that Article 9(1c) technically overlaps with existing accounting obligations. It does not create a new category of records but merely changes their form (electronic) and how they are shared with the authorities (JPK files).

From this perspective, requiring JPK_CIT for records kept abroad in other jurisdictions – under the Polish accounting regime – clearly exceeds the scope of both the CIT Act and the Accounting Act.

Double bookkeeping for foreign branches – the “old” KIS position

In a ruling dated October 3, 2025 (0111 KDWB.4010.100.2025.1.KKM), the Director of KIS claimed that a Polish company must include its foreign self-balancing branches’ records in its JPK_KR_PD filing.

The authority’s reasoning was based mainly on:

• Articles 2(1)(1) and 11(1) of the Accounting Act, which state that records are kept by the “entity”, and a branch is not a separate legal entity;
• the assumption that since the Accounting Act does not explicitly exclude foreign branches, the obligation to include them should extend to units located abroad.

In practice, this position forced Polish companies to:

• recreate the books of foreign branches in Poland, even though these branches already follow their local laws;
• convert foreign-currency records kept under foreign rules into the JPK_KR_PD format;
• adopt technical solutions that clashed with Article 24 of the Accounting Act (which requires records to be reliable, verifiable, and permanent), solely to meet JPK requirements.

Crucially, this interpretation was hard to reconcile with Article 51 of the Accounting Act, which states that:

• branches (including foreign ones) that prepare separate financial statements are self-balancing units;
• the parent company prepares combined financial statements by adding the figures from the entity and its branches (with specific exclusions);
• for foreign branches, the combined statement includes their balance sheets and P&L data after proper currency conversion.

If the Accounting Act assumes separate branch reporting and then “merges” results at the entity level, the 2025 ruling tried to reverse this logic. It demanded uniform “Polish” records for the entire entity just to generate a JPK file. This expansion of the law could not be justified by the 2021 Act’s goals or the standard rules for interpreting public-law obligations.

The new KIS approach- a return to system logic

In 2026, the Director of KIS issued several landmark rulings that effectively reversed the previous stance, including:

• Ruling of April 2, 2026 (0111 KDIB1 2.4010.34.2026.2.EKB);
• Ruling of April 15, 2026 (0111 KDIB2 1.4010.585.2025.2.AJ);
• Ruling of June 23, 2026 (0111 KDIB1 3.4010.278.2026.1.JKU).

In all these cases, the authority concluded that: “The obligation to keep and submit accounting records to the tax office under Article 9(1c) of the CIT Act should not include the records of a taxpayer’s foreign self-balancing branches (i.e., records kept independently by such branches in line with the taxpayer’s accounting policy).”

In its justification, the Director of KIS:

• explicitly refers to Article 2(1) of the Accounting Act, which does not cover the foreign branches of Polish companies;
• points out that for these branches, the Accounting Act only regulates how their financial data is incorporated into the parent’s statements (Article 51);
• stresses that Article 9(1c) CIT only applies to books kept under the Polish Accounting Act (or IAS, where allowed).

At the same time, KIS emphasized that:

• the parent company must keep its own records (per Art. 9(1) CIT) to properly determine income, the tax base, and tax due;
• foreign branch data must be available and correctly included in the records (including off-balance sheet) and the combined financial statements;
• simply keeping books according to foreign law does not require the Polish taxpayer to convert them into the JPK_KR_PD format.

This restores the principle that JPK_CIT should reflect Polish records, not replicate foreign accounting to meet domestic standards.

Is there an inequality between Polish and foreign branches?

This raises another question: why must Polish branches of foreign companies (covered by Art. 2(1)(6) of the Accounting Act) report JPK_CIT, while foreign branches of Polish companies do not?

The answer lies in how the legal system is structured.

A Polish branch of a foreign company operates in Poland, must follow the Polish Accounting Act, and must submit structured data to the tax office. These are “Polish” books used for Polish tax purposes, so Article 9(1c) applies.

In contrast, a foreign branch of a Polish company operates outside Poland. Its records follow local laws. The Polish Accounting Act does not force a foreign branch to follow Polish standards. Instead, the branch’s results are “imported” into the parent’s statements and then accounted for in the CIT return (using the correct double taxation relief method).

While there is a difference in the compliance burden, it is not a violation of equal treatment. The systemic distinction is justified: Polish activity = Polish books + JPK_CIT. Foreign activity = Local books + inclusion in combined statements/CIT, without “double” bookkeeping just for JPK.

Practical results for companies and branches

Under Article 9(1c) of the CIT Act, Polish companies with foreign self-balancing branches currently do not need to report those branches’ records in JPK_KR_PD format. They do not have to “rewrite” foreign books into the Polish system. However, they still need the data in their own records to:

• prepare combined financial statements (Art. 51 of the Accounting Act);
• settle Polish CIT (Art. 9(1) CIT), factoring in the branch’s result and double taxation rules.

The situation is different for Polish branches of foreign entities. They are explicitly listed in the Accounting Act and must keep Polish books and submit JPK_CIT files.

Nevertheless, all companies should clearly define what data foreign branches must provide to the Polish parent to ensure the combined statements, CIT-8 returns, and key JPK_KR_PD sections are prepared correctly.

Expert commentary – the need for a final clarification

The current KIS approach – waiving the need to migrate foreign branch records into Polish systems solely for JPK_KR_PD – perfectly aligns with the CIT and Accounting Acts. These laws were always rooted in Polish accounting realities.

Based on the “Polish Deal” memorandum, there is no evidence the legislator intended JPK_CIT to cover books kept under foreign laws. Extending Article 9(1c) to foreign records just to “fit” them into JPK structures has no legal basis.

JPK_CIT should reflect Polish books and tax duties. It must not become a tool that forces duplicate accounting. The current KIS line finally respects this boundary, and it should now be solidified in law and practice.

To ensure this correct approach lasts and to minimize the risk of future disputes, it would be advisable to:

• clarify in the law (or a general tax ruling) that Article 9(1c) only applies to books kept under the Polish Accounting Act or standards used in Poland;

formally confirm that for foreign self-balancing branches, this duty is fulfilled by properly including their results in the parent’s combined statements (per Art. 51), rather than by keeping a “shadow” set of Polish-style books.