In 2026, an important point of reference for the R&D tax relief remains both the regulatory environment following the implementation of the GloBE rules in Poland and the current interpretative practice of the tax authorities. Recent tax rulings indicate that the authorities are now relatively more willing to accept the research and development nature of projects, while disputes are increasingly focused on the correct classification of individual costs.
From the taxpayer’s perspective, this marks a significant shift in emphasis. In practice, in 2026 it is no longer sufficient merely to demonstrate that a given project is creative and systematic in nature. Increasing importance is attached to whether the taxpayer can precisely demonstrate which costs are eligible for the relief, how they have been recorded in accounting and tax records, and whether they have been financed from public funds. Official guidance from the Ministry of Finance continues to stress that only eligible expenses which have not been reimbursed to the taxpayer in any form may be deducted, and that R&D costs should be properly segregated in the records.
Employee-related costs remain the safest element of the relief
Against the backdrop of the latest tax rulings, personnel costs continue to be regarded as the relatively safest category. This is confirmed both by official materials issued by the tax administration and by rulings issued in early 2026. According to the official explanations of the tax authorities, compensation for unused annual leave may be treated as an eligible expense under the R&D tax relief.
A similar approach can be seen in the ruling of the Director of the National Revenue Information (KIS) of 19 February 2026, ref. no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.750.2025.2.ZK. According to the published summary, the authority allowed remuneration paid for justified absences of contractors engaged under civil law contracts to be treated as eligible costs. At the same time, in the same case, it denied such status to the remuneration of a foreign subcontractor.
This distinction accurately reflects the current approach of the tax authorities: greater flexibility applies to costs related to the taxpayer’s own personnel base, whereas expenses for services purchased from external entities are assessed far more cautiously.
Not every expense related to an R&D project can be covered by the relief
In practice, 2026 increasingly confirms that an economic connection between a cost and an R&D project does not in itself determine whether the cost may be deducted. What is crucial is whether a given expense can be assigned to the statutory catalogue of eligible costs.
This is confirmed by the ruling of the Director of KIS of 16 January 2026, ref. no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.729.2025.2.MBD. According to the available summary, the authority recognised salary-related costs and depreciation as eligible but denied such status to the cost of chartering a vessel.
This is an important signal for taxpayers carrying out complex technological, industrial, or engineering projects. Even where a given cost is necessary from a business perspective, this does not automatically mean that it may be claimed under the R&D tax relief. The tax authorities clearly distinguish between expenses that are “necessary for the project” and those that are “tax-eligible”.
Grant financing still excludes the relief to the extent covered by public support
One of the most practical risks in 2026 remains the proper separation of expenses financed with the taxpayer’s own funds from those covered by public support.
This is illustrated by the ruling of the Director of KIS of 2 March 2026, ref. no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.6.2026.2.ZK. According to the published description, the case concerned equipment purchased as part of research infrastructure used in R&D activities, where part of the expenditure was financed by a grant from ARiMR and part from the company’s own resources. The summary emphasised that the provisions are intended to prevent tax relief from being applied to expenses financed with public funds.
In practice, this means that in projects carried out under a mixed financing model, it is not enough to prove that the entire project has an R&D character. It is also necessary to demonstrate which part of the cost was actually incurred from the taxpayer’s own funds, and only that portion may potentially be included in the relief calculation.
External services and subcontractors remain a high-risk area
It is also very clear that external services continue to be one of the most sensitive and high-risk areas in claiming the R&D tax relief. This is again illustrated by the ruling of 19 February 2026, ref. no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.750.2025.2.ZK, in which the authority accepted certain costs related to contractors, but at the same time denied recognition of the remuneration of a foreign subcontractor as an eligible cost.
For businesses operating with mixed project teams, this is an important indication. The greater the share of external services in the implementation of R&D work, the more important it becomes to conduct an upfront analysis of whether a given expense actually falls within the statutory catalogue. The mere involvement of an external entity in the project does not in itself determine eligibility for the relief.
Combining incentives is possible, but requires precise separation of project stages
In 2026, the practice concerning the combination of different tax incentives is also developing in an interesting way. In the ruling of the Director of KIS of 29 January 2026, ref. no. 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.699.2025.2.MBD, the authority confirmed the possibility of applying both the R&D relief and the prototype relief, but at the same time denied entitlement to the expansion relief, concluding that in the factual circumstances presented there had been no expansion of the product offering within the meaning of the relevant provisions.
This is an important ruling because it demonstrates that the tax authorities do not, as a matter of principle, exclude the combination of incentives, but they do expect a very precise allocation of specific costs and project phases to the appropriate instruments. In practice, this means that the development phase, the prototype phase, and the commercialisation phase must be clearly separated.
What does this mean for taxpayers in 2026?
The latest interpretative practice leads to one key conclusion: in 2026, claiming the R&D tax relief requires not only a correct description of the innovative nature of the project, but above all very good organisation of cost records and financing sources.
From a tax risk management perspective, four areas are now critical:
- Correct allocation of employee-related costs to R&D activities;
- A cautious approach to external services and subcontractors;
- Clear separation of costs financed from public funds;
- Proper distinction between project stages when more than one tax incentive is being used.
In practice, it is precisely the quality of record-keeping, the method of assigning expenses to the project, and the proper separation of financing sources that may determine the safety of the tax position in 2026 more than the description of the project’s innovative character itself.
Kinga Skitek
Senior Consultant
