Remuneration paid to individuals engaged under mandate contracts or contracts for specific work may qualify as one of the key categories of eligible costs for R&D tax relief purposes. The position becomes less straightforward, however, where part of the contractor’s remuneration relates to the transfer of copyright and is treated for PIT purposes as income from property rights.
A strict reading of the R&D tax relief rules may suggest that such copyright fees do not qualify as eligible costs. The tax authorities’ approach to this issue has not, however, been entirely consistent.
Contractor remuneration under the R&D tax relief
Under Article 18d(2)(1a) of the Polish CIT Act, eligible costs may include amounts falling within Article 13(8)(a) of the Polish PIT Act, together with the corresponding social security contributions.
In practice, this covers primarily remuneration paid for services performed under mandate contracts or contracts for specific work.
The amount eligible for deduction is limited to the proportion in which the contractor’s time spent on R&D activities bears to the total time spent performing the relevant contract.
The important point, however, is that the CIT Act does not refer to all remuneration paid to a person engaged under such a contract. It refers specifically to income classified under Article 13(8)(a) of the PIT Act.
That distinction can have significant practical consequences.
The type of contract does not necessarily determine the source of income
In the technology and creative sectors, contracts often provide not only for the performance of services, but also for the transfer of economic copyright in the work produced.
Where this is the case, it is necessary to determine whether the entire remuneration should be treated as income from personally performed activities under Article 13(8) of the PIT Act, or whether the portion attributable to the transfer of copyright constitutes separate income from property rights under Article 18 of the PIT Act.
This distinction was addressed by the Director of the National Tax Information in an individual tax ruling dated 2 September 2025, ref. no. 0112-KDIL2-1.4011.635.2025.1.KF.
According to the tax authority, the classification of the income depends on the contractual arrangements. If the remuneration is not split between payment for the services and a separate copyright fee, the entire amount may be treated as income falling within Article 13(8)(a) of the PIT Act.
At the same time, the authority indicated that where the agreement separately identifies remuneration for the transfer or exploitation of copyright, that amount should generally be treated as income from property rights under Article 18 of the PIT Act rather than income under Article 13(8).
This distinction may have a direct impact on the availability of the R&D tax relief.
There is, however, a favourable ruling specifically concerning R&D relief
The position is not entirely clear-cut.
In an individual tax ruling dated 18 December 2019, ref. no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.473.2019.2.BM, the Director of the National Tax Information accepted that remuneration for the transfer of economic copyright paid to individuals carrying out R&D work under mandate contracts or contracts for specific work could also be treated as an eligible R&D cost.
The authority confirmed that such remuneration could be deducted under Article 18d(2)(1a) of the CIT Act, subject to the relevant proportion reflecting the contractor’s involvement in R&D activities.
Importantly, the case concerned agreements under which the copyright fee was separately identified. The ruling was therefore particularly favourable from the taxpayer’s perspective.
Two rulings, two different directions
Taken together, the two rulings reveal a genuine area of uncertainty.
The 2019 ruling, which dealt directly with the R&D tax relief, supports the inclusion of copyright fees paid to contractors in the eligible-cost base.
The more recent 2025 ruling, although issued in a PIT context and concerning a different issue, takes the view that separately identified copyright remuneration should generally be classified under Article 18 of the PIT Act rather than Article 13(8).
This matters because Article 18d(2)(1a) of the CIT Act refers specifically to income falling within Article 13(8)(a) of the PIT Act.
For this reason, the favourable 2019 ruling should not, in our view, be treated as removing the risk entirely. An individual ruling protects primarily the taxpayer to whom it was issued and within the factual circumstances described in the application. At the same time, the wording of the current legislation still leaves room for a more restrictive interpretation.
What should taxpayers review?
Taxpayers claiming R&D relief in respect of work performed by individuals engaged under mandate contracts or contracts for specific work should review both the wording of those contracts and the way the relevant payments are actually classified for PIT purposes.
Particular attention should be paid where remuneration is split between a fee for the services and a separate copyright fee, and the latter is reported as income under Article 18 of the PIT Act.
In such cases, including the entire amount in the R&D eligible-cost base without further analysis may create a risk that part of the deduction will be challenged.
The issue may be particularly relevant for taxpayers entitled to the 200% deduction for remuneration-related eligible costs. In such cases, even a relatively small overstatement of the eligible-cost base can translate into a significantly larger overstatement of the tax relief claimed.
Under the current rules, most taxpayers may deduct 200% of eligible costs falling, among others, within Article 18d(2)(1) and (1a) of the CIT Act.
An inconsistent approach calls for caution
The tension between the literal wording of the legislation and the favourable 2019 ruling shows that the treatment of copyright fees remains open to interpretation.
Taxpayers including separately identified copyright remuneration paid to contractors in their R&D eligible costs should therefore review not only the contractual wording, but also the way those payments are reflected in payroll records and PIT-11 information returns.
Where the amounts involved are material, obtaining an individual tax ruling may also be worth considering. This can help reduce the uncertainty resulting from inconsistent tax-authority practice and provide greater comfort as to the treatment applied in future R&D tax relief settlements.
Marcin Książek
Manager
Marcin Książek
Manager
