Special Economic Zones / Polish Investment Zone

This is an important stage, because the decision to pursue PSI support should not rest on the general assumption that "a manufacturing investment qualifies." In practice, the outcome is often determined by the details: the type of eligible expenditure, the schedule, the scope of the new investment, its relationship to the existing business activity, and the ability to meet both the quantitative and qualitative criteria. I help organise these elements at an early stage, so that the company knows whether it is worth proceeding, what the risks are, and what needs to be prepared before the formal process begins.

I analyse the potential level of the tax exemption, the available state aid cap, the projected rate at which it will be utilised, the impact of the investment on CIT settlements, and alternative solutions such as other tax reliefs, financing structures, or different approaches to the treatment of expenditure. I look at the project from a broader perspective — tax, legal, accounting, and operational. The goal is not simply to obtain a support decision, but to answer the question of whether the support will actually be useful for the company. A well-prepared analysis helps avoid situations where a business obtains a formal decision but later struggles to use the exemption or to settle the project in line with the original assumptions.

In practice, this process requires a sound combination of tax, legal, and business perspectives. The application should not be merely a formal description of planned expenditure. It must clearly convey what the new investment consists of, what its scope is, what objectives it pursues, and why it meets the conditions for receiving support. My role is to guide the client through this stage in an organised manner: to identify what information is needed, explain the consequences of specific declarations, and ensure that the documentation is consistent with the company's actual investment plan.

I help companies analyse whether an amendment or withdrawal of the decision is possible and justified, or whether the situation can be resolved in another way. I assess the tax and legal consequences of the planned changes, including their impact on the aid cap, compliance with the conditions of the decision, obligations towards the zone management entity, and the risk of the right to the exemption being challenged. This is particularly important when a project has taken on a life of its own. It is better to act early and bring the decision in line with reality than to have to explain — years later — why the actual investment deviates from what was described in the application.

I help companies navigate this stage safely. I support them in ongoing aid settlement, analysis of the rate at which the exemption is being utilised, verification of the available cap, and assessment of whether the adopted settlement approach is consistent with the decision, the applicable regulations, and the practice of the authorities. This matters because errors made at the settlement stage often come to light only after some time. A company may use the exemption for several years, only for an audit to reveal a problem with the method of income allocation, the documentation of costs, or the interpretation of the conditions of the decision. Ongoing support helps reduce that risk and enables decisions to be made on the basis of current data rather than intuition.

Such a review is particularly useful when a company has been benefiting from the support for several years, the investment project has changed, new decisions have been issued, or the settlements have been handled in accordance with internally developed practices that have not been subject to regular external verification. The purpose of the audit is not to look for problems for the sake of it. The aim is to bring order to the situation: to confirm what is working correctly, identify areas of risk, and indicate what can be improved before the authorities come asking. This gives the company greater control over its settlements and allows it to benefit from the available support with greater confidence.

In practice, this is not always straightforward. An investment may evolve relative to its original assumptions; some expenditure may relate to shared infrastructure, modernisation, or fixed assets used partly outside the scope of the project, or to costs that are commercially necessary but require a more cautious tax assessment. In such situations, I help establish a safe approach and prepare argumentation that is clear not only to the tax team but also to the finance function, the investment team, and those responsible for the project on the operational side. A properly conducted cost qualification exercise has a direct bearing on the level of support available — which is why it is worth paying careful attention to it before the settlements are fixed in the books.

I help analyse intra-group transactions from the perspective of their impact on the tax exemption. This covers, among other things, charges for services, licences, financing, product sales, the allocation of shared costs, and settlements between zone and non-zone activities. This is an area where risks are easily overlooked. A transaction may be correct under the general transfer pricing rules while at the same time affecting the level of exempt income. That is why, in the context of zone-based activity, it is worth approaching transfer pricing not merely as a documentation obligation, but as an element of the overall security of the state aid settlement.

I help bring clarity to such situations and assess whether it is worth applying for an individual tax ruling. I prepare applications, describe the actual facts or anticipated future events, and frame the questions and argumentation in such a way that the authority receives a complete and coherent picture of the matter. A good ruling starts with a good description of the problem. It is not just a matter of citing the relevant provisions, but of explaining the business and tax mechanism. This allows a company to gain greater certainty about a planned course of action, or to resolve existing uncertainties before they become a problem during an audit.

In such matters, it is not just a question of preparing sound legal argumentation — the facts must be well organised too. It is necessary to clearly demonstrate how the investment actually unfolded, what decisions the company made, what documents confirm the expenditure incurred, and why the adopted settlement approach was justified. A tax dispute is rarely won on legal provisions alone. It is usually won through a combination of law, documents, figures, and a well-told story of the project. I help clients navigate this process calmly and consistently, so that their position is clear, coherent, and defensible at every stage of the proceedings.

General training on SEZ and PSI is available on the market. It can serve as a useful introduction, but it rarely answers the most important question for any given company: how do these rules apply to us — given our specific decision, our expenditure, our accounting approach, and our organisational structure? That is why I prepare training tailored to the client's situation. We work with real problems: qualifying costs, utilisation of the aid cap, allocation of exempt and taxable income, reporting obligations, documentation requirements, and the risks that may arise in the event of an audit. This kind of training not only transfers knowledge but also aligns understanding across the whole team. This is especially important when different people are involved in the project: finance, accounting, investment, controlling, and management. A well-trained team identifies risks more quickly, documents decisions more effectively, and is less likely to treat the exemption as a topic that belongs exclusively to the tax department.