Valid until the end of the 2026 tax year, the robotization tax credit – as its name implies – allows the use of income tax preferences for robots. The rules for its application are under discussion. One of the controversial approaches of the fiscal regarding the robotization tax credit, i.e. the timing of its settlement with respect to qualified fixed asset expenditures, has been questioned. This may affect the efficiency of the relief.
Robotization relief
The robotization tax relief, regulated in Article 38eb of the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Law, entitles the taxpayer to deduct 50% of unreimbursed tax-deductible expenses incurred in any form during the tax year for robotization, i.e.: the cost of acquiring brand-new
- industrial robots;
- machines and peripheral equipment for industrial robots functionally related to them;
- machinery, equipment and other things functionally related to industrial robots, in particular: sensors, controllers, relays, safety locks, physical barriers (fences, guards), optoelectronic protective devices (light curtains, area scanners);
- machines, devices or systems for remote management, diagnosis, monitoring or servicing of industrial robots, especially sensors and cameras;
- devices for human-machine interaction for industrial robots;
- the costs of acquiring intangible assets necessary for the proper commissioning and acceptance for use of industrial robots and the aforementioned fixed assets;
- costs of acquiring training services on industrial robots and the above-mentioned tangible or intangible assets;
- lease payments on industrial robots and the above-mentioned fixed assets, if the lessor transfers ownership of these fixed assets to the lessee at the end of the basic leasing period.
Certain restrictions on the application of the relief apply, e.g., deductible costs incurred for robotization relating to activities or assets related to mining activities (as defined by the tax legislature) are not deductible.
The amount of the deduction under the robotization tax credit may not exceed the amount of income earned by the taxpayer in the tax year from income other than capital gains income.
The deduction applies to deductible expenses incurred for robotization from the beginning of the tax year that began in 2022 to the end of the tax year that began in 2026.
Depreciation write-offs on robots vs. robotization tax relief
Based on the principles of the robotization allowance outlined above, the Director of the National Tax Information Service (NIT) issued an individual tax ruling in which he questioned the right of a taxpayer – a feed manufacturer purchasing a palletizer – to apply this allowance in the form of a one-time deduction of expenses for a palletizer subject to tax depreciation. He considered that in such a case the condition of „acquisition expenses” referred to in Article 38eb of the CIT Law would not be met. Such expenses, according to the interpretation authority, are depreciation write-offs.
The above approach did not meet with the approval of the Provincial Administrative Court (WSA) in Poznań. In its judgment of June 10, 2025, ref. I SA/Po 16/25, this court held that a one-time settlement of the relief for robotization in the pending case is possible.
First, the tax legislature, in construing the provisions on robotization relief, uses the concept of „acquisition expenses.” Depreciation allowances are not such expenses. The position of the tax authority is therefore inconsistent with both the linguistic and purposive interpretation of Article 38eb of the CIT Law.
Second, tax reliefs and exemptions must be interpreted strictly. This means a prohibition against interpreting the provisions relating to them in an expansive but also restrictive manner.
Third, from the constitutional principle of the rule of law derives the obligation of the legislator to observe the principles of correct legislation, including the clear and precise and linguistically correct formulation of provisions by a rational legislator, from which obligations, as well as entitlements, should result without any doubt as to their content. They should also be interpreted in this way.
Summary
The interpretation of the provisions on the relief for robotization by the WSA in Poznań indicates that it is possible to settle this relief faster than the tax deductible expenses for the acquisition of fixed assets eligible for the relief. It can be used to optimize the effects of the relief.
