Changes in property tax 2025 and investments in RES

1. Is it true that the draft envisages taxing photovoltaic farms on all components, including PV panels?

Not really. The draft explicitly refers to wind and nuclear power plants as facilities to be taxed only on the construction parts. It is controversial that photovoltaic power plants are not mentioned, since they are a common type of investment, unlike nuclear power plants, which are not expected in Poland for at least the next 10 years. This raises the risk that tax authorities will take steps to tax them. Potentially, the authorities have an additional weapon in the form of the premise of “technical-utility wholeness.” We believe that the regulations do not provide grounds for taxing photovoltaic farms on the whole, but on the other hand, we have no doubt that a lot of disputes in this regard will reach the courts.

2. What will the taxation of photovoltaic structures on the roofs of buildings look like?

The draft does not address this type of property. In our opinion, there will be no basis for taxing these elements, as is the case now. Especially since the Act on Local Taxes and Fees will no longer refer to the category of construction equipment. Objects on roofs do not have building parts, and if they do, they should be qualified as a building element.

3. And offshore wind farms? Are there changes to the property tax in this regard?”

The draft does not address offshore wind farms. Wind farms are to be taxed, as they are now, on the building parts, so especially the tower. Potentially, the same could apply to offshore farms. Artificial islands and cable lines are also treated as structures in the draft. But in terms of offshore farms, the issue is one of location. They are to be erected in an area that is not the territory of municipalities. Thus, the possible inclusion of the farms in the property tax would require the amendment of completely different regulations.

4. What will be the definition of the digesters (bioreactors) of a biogas plant as a source of RES, which until now has been treated as a structure due to the lack of a roof, where the covering of the digesters was treated as a device?

The draft does not provide such definitions or even refer to biogas plants. Some of the components of a biogas plant will certainly be treated as a structure, whether in the context of tanks or building parts of technical equipment. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that the tax authorities will want to use the premise of “technical-utility wholeness” to tax all components, including the aforementioned fermenter cover.

5. Who will be the taxpayer for facilities such as tents, photovoltaic power plants when they are installed on leased land?

In this regard, nothing changes. The taxpayer will generally be their owner within the meaning of the Civil Code. The lessee’s outlays on the landlord’s land make them the owner of the land (the lessor), unless they are not “permanently connected to the ground.” But it should be emphasized that this premise is specifically understood in the Civil Code, unlike the one that appears in the project in question and the Building Act. In practice, if the lease agreement is for a fixed term, and the lessee is explicitly obliged to remove his attachments to the ground after the expiration of the agreement, there are grounds for considering the lessee to be the taxpayer. This is a common assumption in the RES industry when investments are made on leased land. On the other hand, if the owner is the State Treasury or a local government, the lessee is always the taxpayer.

6. What if a building/structure is built on someone else’s land? Will something change in this regard? Will the landowner still be obliged to pay the tax?”

The draft amendment to the regulations does not address the issue of who is a taxpayer. Therefore, there should be no change in this regard. As a general rule, the landowner is the taxpayer on the facilities built by the tenant. However, sometimes the taxpayer may be the lessee/tenant, for example, in cases where the lessor is the State Treasury or a local government, or where the premise of a “permanent connection to the ground” within the meaning of the Civil Code does not exist in relation to the nemeses. This often applies to RES installations on leased land due to specific contractual provisions. Changes to the taxpayer on leased property, on the other hand, are envisaged by the parliamentary bill on reducing bureaucracy and legal barriers, which we already referred to in an earlier question.