Robotization Tax Relief: What constitutes an industrial application of a robot?

Tax Authorities Adopt a Restrictive Interpretation of the Robotization Tax Relief

The Director of the National Revenue Information Service (Krajowa Informacja Skarbowa) has consistently maintained that, for example, robots used in logistics and warehousing do not qualify as industrial robots. The tax authorities’ reasoning is based on a restrictive interpretation of the term “industrial applications”, limiting it exclusively to manufacturing processes sensu stricto. Consequently, they deny the relief in respect of equipment that is not used directly in manufacturing, such as warehouse robots, even where such equipment consists of advanced, autonomous and integrated systems that directly support the production process.

This approach raises significant concerns. In modern industrial facilities, production does not end once the physical manufacture of the goods has been completed. The industrial process also encompasses activities necessary to prepare products for subsequent distribution, including packaging, palletizing, sorting, internal transportation and preparation for shipment.

Artificially separating these stages from the production process does not always reflect commercial reality, particularly in highly automated enterprises where internal logistics are intrinsically integrated with production lines.

Administrative Courts Challenge the Tax Authorities’ Position

The provincial administrative courts (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, WSA) have recognized that, in the context of modern industry, robotization extends beyond the production workstation itself and encompasses the entire production environment, including automated warehousing and the handling of material flows. In practice, these areas frequently determine a facility’s operational efficiency, cost optimization and capacity for business expansion.

For example:

“The logistics stage following the manufacture of a product, as well as the packaging stage, are of fundamental importance from the perspective of the profitability and cost efficiency of the business. There is no rational justification for treating this stage of production as falling outside the industrial process. In the Court’s view, production processes are aimed not only at the direct manufacture of the product—as argued by the tax authority—but also encompass subsequent stages, including those occurring between the raw materials warehouse and the finished goods warehouse, together with the various production-related processes taking place during that period.” (Judgment of the WSA in Gliwice of 12 July 2023, case no. I SA/Gl 119/23).

This judgment is significant because the court did not limit the concept of an industrial process to the mere act of manufacturing a product. Instead, it adopted a broader, functional approach, under which the role of a particular device within the overall production cycle is decisive. Where a robot participates in processes directly connected with manufacturing, packaging, transportation, warehousing or preparing products for subsequent distribution, it is difficult to automatically deny its industrial character merely because it does not physically process the product itself.

The Robotization Tax Relief Covers a Broad Range of Equipment

The WSA in Poznań has likewise emphasized that there are no grounds for narrowly construing the concept of “industrial applications”. The court pointed out that the relief also extends to various peripheral devices associated with industrial robots, which do not necessarily serve the direct manufacture of products:

“The tax relief at issue also covers the costs of peripheral equipment for industrial robots, including equipment used in production stages such as transferring and assembly, loading and unloading, packaging, nailing, palletizing and depalletizing, sorting, mixing, testing and measuring. These activities clearly extend beyond the strict stage of manufacturing goods and correspond precisely to the activities described in the future event presented in the taxpayer’s application.” (Non-final judgment of the WSA in Poznań of 22 August 2024, case no. I SA/Po 320/24).

This argument is particularly important from a systemic perspective. Since the legislature expressly refers to peripheral equipment performing activities such as loading, packaging, palletizing and sorting, it is difficult to conclude that “industrial applications” should be understood solely as the direct manufacture of goods. Such an interpretation would lead to an unjustified narrowing of the scope of the relief and could undermine its legislative objective of promoting automation and robotization within businesses.

The Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, NSA) has not yet definitively ruled on whether the robotization tax relief may extend to robots that do not directly perform manufacturing operations in the strict sense but remain functionally connected with the industrial process. In practice, this means that claiming the relief in such circumstances is possible, although it may entail the risk of a dispute with the tax authorities and require reliance on the purposive line of case law developed by WSA.

Nevertheless, guidance may also be drawn, by analogy, from the case law concerning withholding tax on income derived from the use of, or the right to use, industrial equipment. In the NSA’s view, the concept of “industrial equipment” should be interpreted broadly, encompassing all equipment used in the ordinary course of a taxpayer’s business activity (see, for example, the judgment of the NSA of 7 March 2025, case no. II FSK 1598/24).