Specialist software is one of the key working tools used in many research and development projects, particularly in the IT, technology and engineering sectors. It is used to create prototypes, carry out tests, simulations and technical analyses, as well as perform other project-related work. However, this does not mean that every expense incurred on such software may be settled under R&D tax relief.
In a recent individual tax ruling, the Director of the National Revenue Information stated that fees for licences and subscriptions for specialist software which are not recognised by the taxpayer as intangible assets subject to amortisation cannot be treated as eligible costs under R&D tax relief.
Background of the case
The case concerned a Company conducting research and development activity (hereinafter: R&D). As part of its projects, the Company used specialist software which was used directly by its technical teams in the course of R&D work. The software was used, among other things, for designing, simulations, testing, modelling solutions, creating prototypes and carrying out technical analyses.
The Company emphasised that access to this type of tools was necessary for the effective conduct of its R&D work and for achieving the expected results. Importantly, the licences and subscriptions were used by the Company exclusively in its R&D activity and were not used in production, commercial or other ongoing operating activity.
Access to the software was temporary and, as a rule, did not exceed 12 months. As a result, the Company did not recognise the licences and subscriptions as intangible assets subject to amortisation, but recognised the related expenses directly as tax-deductible costs.
The Company’s position
In the Company’s opinion, fees for licences and subscriptions for specialist software could be treated as eligible costs within the meaning of Article 18d(2)(2a) of the CIT Act, i.e. as expenses incurred on the acquisition of specialist equipment which is not a fixed asset and is used directly in R&D activity.
According to the Company, this type of software in practice functions as a specialist working tool without which the performance of certain R&D work would be impossible or significantly hindered. The Company stressed that, since the provision uses the phrase “in particular”, the catalogue of specialist equipment should not be limited only to items such as laboratory vessels, laboratory utensils or measuring devices listed in that provision.
The tax authority’s restrictive approach
In the individual tax ruling dated April 23, 2026 (ref. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.54.2026.1.JG), the Director of the National Revenue Information, ruled that the Company’s position was invalid.
First, the tax authority recalled that the general catalogue of eligible costs for R&D tax relief set out in Article 18d of the CIT Act is a closed catalogue. This means that the mere connection of a given expense with research and development activity is not sufficient for that expense to be deducted under R&D tax relief. The cost must also fall within one of the categories expressly listed in the provisions.
The most important part of the ruling concerned the concept of “specialist equipment”. According to the Director of the National Revenue Information, such equipment should have a tangible nature, meaning that it should constitute a physical item used in specific work. The mere fact that a given tool is specialist and is used for R&D activity does not in itself determine whether the related expense may be settled under R&D tax relief.
In the tax authority’s view, fees for software licences and subscriptions do not lead to the acquisition of any tangible asset. The Company merely acquires the right to use a computer program, i.e. a benefit of an intangible nature. Therefore, according to the tax authority, such expenses cannot be treated as costs incurred on the acquisition of specialist equipment within the meaning of Article 18d(2)(2a) of the CIT Act.
The Director of the National Revenue Information also ruled out the possibility of assigning the analysed expenses to other categories of eligible costs under R&D tax relief, indicating that software fees:
- do not constitute materials or raw materials, as they are not tangible and are not physically consumed,
- do not fall within the concept of scientific and research equipment,
- cannot be settled through amortisation write-offs, because in the analysed case the licences and subscriptions did not constitute intangible assets subject to amortisation due to the period for which they were used.
As a result, the Director of the National Revenue Information concluded that periodic fees for the use of specialist software, which does not constitute intangible assets in the Company, do not fall within any of the categories of eligible costs provided for in Article 18d of the CIT Act and, therefore, cannot be settled under R&D tax relief.
Conclusions from the case
This ruling is important primarily for entities from the IT, technology, gaming and engineering sectors which, as part of their R&D activity, use various digital tools, systems, applications, design environments, simulation tools or testing environments. From a practical perspective, the key point is that the Director of the National Revenue Information clearly separated the functional importance of a given expense from its formal classification under the R&D tax relief provisions.
In other words, even if given software is in fact necessary to carry out R&D work, is used exclusively in such projects and is properly allocated to research and development activity, in the tax authority’s view this does not automatically mean that the related fees may be deducted under R&D tax relief.
The most interesting and, at the same time, most problematic aspect of this case is the tax authority’s rigorous approach to the classification of costs covered by R&D tax relief. In practice, this means that in the case of short-term licences and subscriptions which are not recognised as intangible assets, taxpayers – under such an approach of the authority – will not be able to assign such expenses to any category of costs covered by R&D tax relief.
However, it should be remembered that not every expense incurred on software will be excluded from R&D tax relief. A different assessment should be made, for example, where the acquired software meets the conditions for being recognised as an intangible asset and is subject to amortisation. In such a case, the relevant amortisation write-offs may be settled under R&D tax relief, provided that the remaining statutory conditions are met.
The analysed ruling shows that taxpayers should not limit themselves only to demonstrating that a given cost is useful or even necessary for conducting R&D activity. It is equally important to precisely determine and confirm to which category of eligible costs the expense may be assigned. Therefore, from the perspective of taxpayers using R&D tax relief, it becomes particularly important to review expenses incurred, among others, on software, including short-term licences, subscriptions, SaaS access or fees for tools used by project teams. Where significant amounts are involved, it is also worth considering securing the taxpayer’s own position in this respect.
To sum up, the ruling reflects a rigorous approach of the tax authorities to the classification of costs settled under R&D tax relief. This is particularly important for the IT sector, as the model of working on new solutions increasingly relies on access to specialist digital tools rather than on traditionally understood tangible equipment. Therefore, it is worth ensuring not only proper documentation of the company’s R&D activity itself, but also the correct and secure classification of individual categories of costs incurred as part of such projects.
Michał Solarski
Supervisor
Kamil Orłowski
Senior Consultant
