Tax Disputes Concerning Seafarers’ Settlements
The fact that the correct classification of services performed by a vessel is far from straightforward is confirmed by the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court (WSA) in Szczecin of 13 April 2023, in case I SA/Sz 918/22. The dispute was initiated by the taxpayer’s application for limitation of advance income tax payments for 2022.
The tax authority refused. In the authority’s view, the vessel on which the taxpayer worked sailed on European inland waters, in particular those of the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France. The appeal filed by the taxpayer was also unsuccessful.
The appellate authority explained that the condition of performing work outside the land territory of states is set out in Art. 27g(5) of the PIT Act. The administrative court disagreed with the tax authority’s position. In the view of the WSA in Szczecin, the authorities’ reasoning led to the absurd conclusion that individuals actually performing work in international transport on inland waters were working on land. The WSA held that since such work is no different from that performed by seafarers on other waters, it cannot be inferred that a person working on such a vessel earns income from work on land and is not entitled to the same rights as other seafarers.
The cited judgment, favourable to seafarers, is not final. Similarly, the judgment of the WSA in Gdańsk of 17 January 2024 in case I SA/Gd 984/23 endorsed the tax authority’s position that the unit on which the seafarer sailed was not operated in international transport. The vessel was conclusively classified as a coastal support vessel (tug), a supply ship servicing drilling platforms.
NSA Judgment of 15 December 2025 (II FSK 785/22, Seven-Judge Panel) – Payment of Tax Abroad Does Not Condition Applicability of a Treaty
Of major significance for disputes over the taxation of seafarers is the NSA judgment of 15 December 2025 (II FSK 785/22), delivered by a seven-judge panel. The NSA held that neither the arising of a tax liability in the other Contracting State nor the question of actual payment of tax by the Polish taxpayer in that state condition the applicability of a double taxation treaty. It is sufficient that the income “may be taxed” within the meaning of the convention.
The judgment ends a longstanding dispute in which tax authorities made the application of methods for the avoidance of double taxation – and consequently abolition relief – conditional on the occurrence of effective taxation abroad. The NSA found this interpretation to be incorrect and issued a signalling order to the Minister of Finance, pointing to the divergence of positions between the Ministry and the territorial tax administration authorities (Directors of Tax Administration Chambers).
The judgment is of significance primarily for seafarers whose income satisfies the treaty conditions – i.e., those working on vessels operated in international transport by an enterprise of a Contracting State. It does not, however, change the situation of offshore seafarers working on vessels that are not recognised as operated in international transport – in their case the convention does not apply for a different reason (absence of the transport condition, discussed below).
Nor does the judgment change the position in treaty-free situations, where the general tax ruling of the Minister of Finance (No. DD4.8201.1.2019) continues to require actual payment of tax abroad as a condition for abolition relief.
NSA Judgment of 29 January 2026 (II FSK 702/23) – FPSO Is Not International Transport
Of landmark significance for disputes over the classification of offshore units is the NSA judgment of 29 January 2026 (II FSK 702/23). The NSA held that a floating production system – despite being classified as an other cargo ship – does not participate in international transport within the meaning of Art. 3(1)(f) and Art. 14(3) of the Polish-Norwegian Convention.
The NSA emphasised that the classification of an activity as “transport” is determined by the principal purpose of the vessel’s operations. The judgment continues an established line of NSA case law, encompassing judgments from 2019, 2022, 2025 and 2026.
For seafarers working on FPSO, FSO, FLNG units, cable-laying vessels, pipe-laying vessels and research vessels, the prospects for a favourable resolution of a dispute with the tax authorities regarding transport classification are currently very limited. This does not, however, preclude an individual analysis of the specific facts.
WSA Gdańsk Judgment of 4 February 2026 (I SA/Gd 935/25) – Seismic Vessel and Absence of a Conflict of Taxing Claims
A week after the NSA’s FPSO judgment, the WSA in Gdańsk dismissed the complaint of a seafarer working on a seismographic vessel. The court not only confirmed that a research vessel does not participate in international transport but held that a double taxation treaty does not apply at all where there is no conflict of taxing claims between two states.
It should be noted that the WSA’s thesis regarding the necessity of a conflict of claims as a condition for the treaty’s applicability remains in tension with the earlier NSA judgment of 15 December 2025 (II FSK 785/22, seven-judge panel), in which the court held that actual arising of a tax liability abroad does not condition the applicability of the convention. This divergence would not, however, have changed the outcome of the seismic vessel case – regardless of the position adopted on the payment condition, the vessel was not operated in international transport and therefore the treaty conditions were not satisfied.
The court also rejected the argument that Art. 27g(5) constitutes a standalone basis for the relief. The judgment is not final.
WSA Gdańsk Judgment of 18 February 2026 (I SA/Gd 951/25) – Defeat on Procedural Grounds
In February 2026, the WSA in Gdańsk dismissed the complaint of a seafarer whose facts – a Cyprus-flagged vessel, international shipping, carriage of cargo, UK management – gave potential grounds for either a PIT exemption or abolition relief.
The seafarer lost not on substantive law but on procedure. In his application for limitation of advance payments he relied solely on Art. 21(1)(23c) of the PIT Act (PIT exemption), without demonstrating the probability that its conditions were met. When, at the appeal stage, he attempted to change the basis to Art. 27g (abolition relief), the court held that the taxpayer’s application defines the scope of the proceedings – and a change at the appeal stage is inadmissible
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.
