Taxation of a Seafarer on a Seismic Vessel
No Foreign Tax = No Abolition Relief. WSA Gdańsk on a Seafarer on a Seismic Vessel
The Regional Administrative Court (WSA) in Gdańsk in its judgment of 4 February 2026 (I SA/Gd 935/25) dismissed the complaint of a seafarer working on a seismographic vessel, denying him the right to limitation of advance PIT payments for 2025. The judgment is significant not only because it provides yet another confirmation that research vessels do not participate in international transport — but above all because the court articulated two propositions that have not previously been stated with such clarity in the case law.
First: if the seafarer fails to demonstrate the probability that a tax liability arises at all in the state whose convention he invokes, the double taxation treaty does not apply. Second: Art. 27g(5) of the PIT Act (work outside the land territory) is not a standalone basis for entitlement to abolition relief — it merely removes the PLN 1,360 monetary cap.
The Facts: Seismic Vessel, Singaporean Employer, UK Management
Mr P. P. — a Polish tax resident — worked in 2025 on the vessel “O”, classified as a Research Vessel (seismographic research ship) designed for geophysical surveys of the seabed. The formal employer was G Pte Ltd, registered in Singapore, while the taxpayer relied on the Polish-UK Convention, stating that the vessel was operated by R Ltd with its place of effective management in the United Kingdom.
On this basis, the seafarer applied for limitation of advance PIT payments for 2025 in full — arguing entitlement to abolition relief under Art. 27g of the PIT Act read with Art. 14(3) of the Polish-UK Convention. Both the local tax office in Gdynia and the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber in Gdańsk rejected the application. The WSA upheld the authorities’ decision.
First Key Finding: No Conflict of Claims – No Treaty
Traditional disputes over abolition relief for seafarers revolve around whether a given vessel participates in international transport. The WSA in Gdańsk did not stop at this argument — although it too was raised (a seismic vessel, like an FPSO, does not transport persons or cargo). The court went further and examined whether the Polish-UK Convention applied in this case at all.
The answer: no — because there is no conflict of taxing claims.
The court recalled that double taxation treaties are designed to allocate taxing claims of more than one state. They may apply in three scenarios: where two limited tax liabilities overlap, where two unlimited liabilities overlap, or where an unlimited liability in one state coincides with a limited liability in another. In the case at hand, the appellant failed to demonstrate the probability that any tax liability existed in the United Kingdom. His payslips (issued by the Singaporean employer) showed no deductions for income tax. He submitted no document confirming that he or his employer paid tax in the UK.
Without a conflict there is no double taxation. Without double taxation the treaty does not step in. As the court put it: “a double taxation treaty is not designed to eliminate taxation altogether — it is designed to intervene in the event of a dispute between states. In this case there is no dispute.”
This reasoning has fundamental practical consequences. Many seafarers working on offshore vessels — managed by British, Norwegian or Danish entities — are employed by crewing agencies in Singapore, Cyprus or the Marshall Islands that do not withhold tax in the state of the vessel’s management. The WSA judgment makes clear: the mere fact that the vessel is managed from the UK is insufficient. The seafarer must demonstrate that his income is subject to a tax liability there — or that it is exempt under domestic law.
Second Key Finding: Art. 27g(5) Is Not a Standalone Basis for the Relief
The appellant raised an argument that — as our practice shows — is increasingly common: that Art. 27g(5) of the PIT Act constitutes a standalone basis for entitlement to abolition relief for persons working outside the land territory of states. The logic is intuitively attractive: since the provision states that the PLN 1,360 cap does not apply to income from work “outside the land territory of states,” the relief must be available without limitation.
The court categorically rejected this, drawing a precise distinction between entitlement to the relief and the amount of the relief. Art. 27g(5) does not create a standalone right to abolition relief — it merely indicates when the monetary cap in paragraph 2, second sentence, does not apply. Before the question of the cap even arises, it must first be established whether the taxpayer qualifies for the relief at all under Art. 27g(1). And that provision requires that foreign income be settled under the rules of Art. 27(9) or (9a) of the PIT Act — which in turn presupposes the existence of double taxation or at least a potential conflict of taxing claims.
In other words: paragraph 5 says “how much may be deducted.” But to deduct anything at all, the conditions of paragraph 1 must be met. And the appellant did not meet them.
Documentation: Payslips as Evidence Against the Taxpayer
The judgment also confirms a practical finding that we highlight in our article on the verification of seafarers’ settlements: documents submitted by the taxpayer to the authorities can turn against him. Payslips issued by the Singaporean employer — showing no tax deductions — became evidence for the court that no tax liability arose in the UK. The Seafarer Employment Agreement, in turn, confirmed that remuneration was paid “without deductions for taxes and social security contributions.”
For seafarers filing applications for limitation of advance payments, the lesson is clear: merely invoking a convention with the state of the vessel’s management is not enough. The probability must be demonstrated that a tax liability actually exists in that state — or that the income is exempt from tax there under domestic law. An absence of any deductions on payslips, no certificate from HMRC, no tax return filed in the UK — all of this weighs against the taxpayer.
Judgment Not Final – But the Direction Is Clear
The WSA judgment is not final, and the appellant has the right to lodge a cassation appeal with the NSA. The context, however, cannot be ignored: the ruling is consistent with the established NSA case law on the classification of specialist vessels, and the argument concerning the absence of a conflict of taxing claims reinforces — rather than weakens — the courts’ existing position.
Practical Conclusions
For seafarers on seismic, research and drilling vessels — the judgment confirms what we flagged in connection with the NSA’s FPSO ruling: specialist vessels do not qualify as operated in international transport. But case I SA/Gd 935/25 adds a second, independent risk: even if transport classification were not an issue, the absence of evidence of a foreign tax liability closes the door to the relief.
For seafarers filing applications for limitation of advance payments — this is a taxpayer-initiated proceeding, and the burden of demonstrating probability rests on the taxpayer. Mere assertions and declarations are insufficient. The court expects documents: confirmations of tax paid abroad, certificates from foreign tax authorities, evidence that the income is subject to a tax liability in the state whose convention the taxpayer invokes. Details on required documentation are discussed in our article on the verification of seafarers’ settlements.
For all seafarers invoking Art. 27g(5) — this provision is not a standalone ticket to abolition relief. It merely removes the PLN 1,360 cap. The conditions of Art. 27g(1) must first be met, and these require the settlement of foreign income under Art. 27(9) or (9a) of the PIT Act. Anyone who cannot demonstrate a foreign tax liability will not benefit from the relief — regardless of whether they work on land, at sea, or on the ocean floor.
Legal basis: WSA Gdańsk judgment of 4 February 2026, case no. I SA/Gd 935/25 (not final); Art. 22 § 2a of the Tax Ordinance Act of 29 August 1997 (Journal of Laws 2025, item 111); Art. 27(9), Art. 27g(1), (2) and (5) of the Personal Income Tax Act of 26 July 1991 (consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2025, item 163, as amended); Art. 14(3) of the Convention between the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation of 20 July 2006, as amended by the MLI.
Robert Nogacki – licensed legal counsel (radca prawny, WA-9026), Founder of Kancelaria Prawna Skarbiec.
There are lawyers who practice law. And there are those who deal with problems for which the law has no ready answer. For over twenty years, Kancelaria Skarbiec has worked at the intersection of tax law, corporate structures, and the deeply human reluctance to give the state more than the state is owed. We advise entrepreneurs from over a dozen countries – from those on the Forbes list to those whose bank account was just seized by the tax authority and who do not know what to do tomorrow morning.
One of the most frequently cited experts on tax law in Polish media – he writes for Rzeczpospolita, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, and Parkiet not because it looks good on a résumé, but because certain things cannot be explained in a court filing and someone needs to say them out loud. Author of AI Decoding Satoshi Nakamoto: Artificial Intelligence on the Trail of Bitcoin’s Creator. Co-author of the award-winning book Bezpieczeństwo współczesnej firmy (Security of a Modern Company).
Kancelaria Skarbiec holds top positions in the tax law firm rankings of Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Four-time winner of the European Medal, recipient of the title International Tax Planning Law Firm of the Year in Poland.
He specializes in tax disputes with fiscal authorities, international tax planning, crypto-asset regulation, and asset protection. Since 2006, he has led the WGI case – one of the longest-running criminal proceedings in the history of the Polish financial market – because there are things you do not leave half-done, even if they take two decades. He believes the law is too serious to be treated only seriously – and that the best legal advice is the kind that ensures the client never has to stand before a court.
