KSeF: proposed postponement of penalties to 2028 and businesses’ obligations in 2027

The proposed postponement of specific KSeF penalties could give businesses more time to correct process failures. It would not postpone the entire obligation to use Poland’s National e-Invoicing System. Finance teams should distinguish the date when penalties apply, the scope of mandatory invoicing and responsibility for accurate VAT reporting.

Which penalties would be postponed?

The government bill would move the application of specified provisions of Article 106ni of the Polish VAT Act from 1 January 2027 to 1 January 2028. These establish a specific penalty mechanism concerning, among other things, invoicing in breach of the KSeF obligation and certain procedural requirements in the statutory operating modes.

The Ministry of Finance explains the proposal by reference to the time taxpayers need to adapt their processes. The amending legislation is intended to enter into force on 31 December 2026. Whether the postponement takes effect depends on completion of the legislative process and official promulgation. A government announcement alone does not change a deadline in existing legislation.

What businesses must still do despite a penalty delay

The non-application of a particular administrative penalty does not make KSeF voluntary for an entity and transaction within the mandatory scope. A business must still issue and receive invoices correctly and account for VAT. Statutory exclusions and transitional provisions must be considered, rather than assuming that every person and document follows identical rules.

Postponing Article 106ni would not remove liability for every tax failure. Errors in returns, records or invoice content and consequences under other legal provisions require separate analysis. The start date for KSeF penalties cannot determine all of those issues.

Businesses using the temporary arrangement for a low monthly value of invoiced sales need a separate review. A bill about penalties does not automatically extend every other concession. At the turn of 2026 and 2027, each business needs a list of the actual transitional provisions on which it relies.

Sending an invoice does not complete the process

A common practical gap lies between the sales software and the result of processing in KSeF. The business system may show an invoice as sent even though KSeF rejected it. A procedure should check status, confirmation of acceptance and allocation of the KSeF number, then connect that information correctly with the document in the accounting records.

Purchase invoices also need controls. Access to KSeF is insufficient if documents do not reach the cost approver, accounting team or payment system on time.

Six areas to check before 2027

• Scope: identify the entities, transactions and document types covered by the obligation and those excluded.
• Status: assign responsibility for monitoring acceptance, rejection and the KSeF number, and for documenting error resolution.
• Permissions: establish who may act in the system, how certificates are managed and what happens after a staff or accounting-provider change.
• Special modes: identify when and on what legal basis the relevant offline or emergency mode applies, and who monitors follow-up duties after the problem ends.
• Corrections and foreign customers: account for corrective invoices and delivery to recipients who do not receive the invoice through KSeF.
• Reconciliation: compare KSeF data with records, the VAT return and the sales system.

A useful test follows actual business scenarios: a rejected invoice, a correction after the month closes, an invoice for a foreign customer and the usual operator losing access. Each task should have an owner and a substitute.

How to use any additional time

If the postponement is adopted, use the period to eliminate recurring errors and measure whether controls work. Rejection counts, resolution time and agreement with accounting records say more about readiness than confirmation that an integration has been switched on.

Until the amendment is promulgated, the timetable should also cover the possibility that the bill does not take effect on the expected date. Operational readiness should not depend entirely on the outcome of parliamentary proceedings.

The provision being postponed and the reason given

Technically, proposed Article 2(2) amends Article 23 of the amending Act of 16 June 2023 by adding point 5 concerning Article 106ni(1)–(3) and (5)–(7) of the VAT Act. That is the scope of specific KSeF penalties, not the whole invoicing obligation. The bill also corrects cross-references for special modes. Correct application requires distinguishing offline24, system unavailability, an outage and a total outage.

In the explanatory memorandum to paper 3245, the government refers to technical and organisational difficulties and the need to give additional time to taxpayers approaching the end of transitional periods. It also states that Poland’s National Revenue Administration (KAS) can remind businesses of their duties and verify tax compliance under Article 272 of the Tax Ordinance. Postponing a specific penalty therefore does not eliminate VAT checks.

The memorandum also recalls the end of certain concessions from 1 January 2027, including the arrangement for monthly invoiced sales of up to PLN 10,000 gross. The penalties bill should not be treated as extending that threshold arrangement. Businesses should identify the legal basis for their own transitional treatment and prepare the process before it expires.

KSeF corrections, wrong tax IDs and indirect rebates: which documents apply?

One collective correction with increases and reductions: which VAT period applies?

In the ruling of 11 September 2026, 0113-KDIPT1-2.4012.549.2026.2.KT, KIS accepted one corrective invoice for electricity-sales intermediary fees containing increases and decreases. It had to satisfy VAT Article 106j and identify the invoices and transactions. This was not Article 106j(3)’s special period-rebate correction. KIS nevertheless rejected always reporting the net balance in the issue period: increases follow Article 29a(17) and the cause’s occurrence, while decreases follow the relevant paragraphs 13–13c and 14. Technical KSeF acceptance does not determine that classification.

One document can settle several items with different timing consequences. Identify the reason for each increase and apply the relevant reduction rules separately. A breakdown by correction type and VAT period preserves that distinction instead of allowing the document’s net balance to determine the tax period.

Wrong purchaser tax ID in KSeF: correct to zero or amend the details?

The ruling of 25 September 2026, 0114-KDIP4-3.4012.407.2026.1.AAR, addresses several correction types and is partly favourable, partly unfavourable. For an invoice accepted by KSeF but issued to the wrong purchaser, KIS required a zeroing correction for that counterparty and a new invoice for the actual purchaser. Under those facts both were reported in the original sale period because the error existed from the outset. Similarly, duplicate invoicing of the same service required zeroing one invoice. Do not extend that finding to returned advances or every other correction discussed in the ruling.

The error existed at the original sale: the transaction involved the correct customer, but the invoice named another entity. A zero correction and replacement invoice reconstructed the same sale, explaining the original-period treatment. A duplicated invoice similarly requires removing duplicated turnover rather than recognising another sale.

A manufacturer’s indirect rebate: accounting note or KSeF invoice?

In the ruling of 15 October 2026, 0114-KDIP1-1.4012.565.2026.2.EW, a manufacturer paid bonuses to customers buying its goods from independent distributors. Recipients supplied no marketing or other services in return. KIS treated the bonus as an indirect rebate documented by a reliable accounting note, rather than a recipient’s invoice or structured KSeF invoice. There was no direct manufacturer-to-recipient sale or original invoice between them. The rebate could adjust the manufacturer’s output VAT, but the note generated no deductible input VAT. A bonus actually remunerating advertising, display or another service requires a fresh assessment.

The customer purchased from a distributor, while the manufacturer funded the bonus. There was no sale between the bonus parties to correct and no service supplied in return. Those two features explained the accounting note. Payment for advertising or display would instead introduce a different service and documentation basis.

Numerical example: one document, two VAT periods

Reporting only PLN 2,300 net VAT in November would omit the PLN 4,600 increase attributable to October. A different issue mode or a cause already existing when the original invoice was issued requires reassessment. Record each item’s cause and dates, not just “accepted in KSeF”.

Invoice errors, VAT deduction and penalties: what follows from CJEU judgments?

In Senatex, C-518/14, 15 September 2016, the CJEU rejected denying retroactive effect to an invoice correction concerning a tax identification number for VAT deduction. The taxpayer already held invoices; the case did not concern having no invoice at all. It informs analysis of corrected particulars and deduction timing, rather than authorising disregard of KSeF issue or submission duties.

Barlis 06, C-516/14, 15 September 2016, concerned overly general service descriptions and performance periods. A formal defect alone could not justify refusal of deduction where the authority had information to verify substantive conditions; additional taxpayer evidence also mattered. This does not validate arbitrary invoice contents. The taxpayer still has to establish an actual purchase and its connection to taxable activities.

In Grupa Warzywna, C-935/19, 15 April 2021, the CJEU opposed an automatic 20% penalty on an overstated refund insofar as it prevented consideration of the error’s nature, absence of fraud and lack of revenue loss. This concerned the then additional VAT liability, not Article 106ni’s KSeF penalty. Proportionality matters when reviewing penalties, but the judgment neither cancels every penalty in advance nor decides the proposed 2028 postponement.

These judgments provide context for invoices, evidence and sanctions; none directly decides the current KSeF bill. Separate the actual transaction, invoicing duty, system-processing result, VAT period and possible liability basis. Another taxpayer’s ruling identifies issues but gives no individual protection to a business with different facts.

KSeF after implementation: invoices, corrections and foreign sales

TLP can review the VAT procedure and assign responsibilities to the way documents actually move through your business.

Let’s discuss your situation

Briefly describe your business situation and the question you would like to resolve. We will agree the scope of the analysis and the documents needed in our reply.

Starting points for our discussion

• Scope: identify the entities, transactions and document types covered by the obligation and those excluded.
• Status: assign responsibility for monitoring acceptance, rejection and the KSeF number, and for documenting error resolution.

Send us a message

Full name*

Phone*

E-mail*

Message*

The administrator of the personal data is Tax Legal Partner J. Włoch, P. Szot Sp. j. with its registered office in Kraków, ul. Jana Zamoyskiego 81/15, 30-519 Kraków. The personal data shall be processed, among others, for the purpose of correspondence, including replying to messages sent to the administrator. For more information about the processing of your personal data, including your rights, please see our Privacy Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

We will agree the scope and order of the next steps. The assessment depends on the facts, documents and Polish provisions applicable to your situation.