by Admin2 | Jun 3, 2026 | news-en
ATTENTION – THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION FROM POLISH
The Provincial Administrative Court in Bydgoszcz, in its judgment of February 3, 2026 (file no. I SA/Bd 672/25), clarified the concept of a "single parent" in the context of the Personal Income Tax Act and repealed the individual interpretation issued by the Director of the National Tax Information Service on October 22, 2025, which restricted the applicant's right to preferential income tax treatment.
In this case, the applicant, divorced in 2012, was raising her son, born in 2009, alone. The father had no contact with them, did not participate in their upbringing, and child support payments were enforced by bailiffs. The applicant had full custody of their child.
In 2019, the applicant gave birth to a daughter from an informal relationship, whom she raised together with her partner. Importantly, the partner was not the Appellant's son's guardian, did not contribute to his expenses, and did not interfere with his upbringing. Due to her daughter's upbringing, the court recognized the Appellant's entitlement to the tax relief only for 2021, denying it for 2022-2024 (Article 6, Section 4f of the Personal Income Tax Act).
The court found the court's position that jointly raising a second child with a new partner automatically deprives the first child of single status, whose father is not involved in their life, to be erroneous. The justification indicated that the criterion of singleness should be applied to the specific child and the lack of participation of the other parent, and not to the taxpayer's overall living situation or the presence of third parties in the home.
Thanks to this ruling, the woman gained the right to benefit from the preferential income tax settlement for 2022-2024, because her current partner is not the legal guardian of her older son and does not participate in his upbringing.
The court correctly noted that the legislature, by introducing Article 6, Section 4f of the Personal Income Tax Act, had failed to recognize the right to a tax relief for 2022-2024. Article 6, section 4f of the Personal Income Tax Act sought to eliminate abuses in situations where both biological parents share custody (e.g., alternating custody), yet one of them declares a sole parent. Applying this principle to a situation in which the new partner has no rights or obligations towards the child from a previous relationship would be an overinterpretation of the law to the citizen's detriment. The ruling therefore constitutes a powerful argument in disputes with the State Treasury for all individuals in a similar family situation.
The ruling in question is not final.
by Admin2 | May 2, 2026 | news-en
Starting from October 1, 2026, significant changes to the rules for granting support from the alimony fund will come into effect, as announced by the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy on January 22, 2026 (item 138, Journal of Laws of 2026, item 79, Article 9(2f) of the Act on Assistance to Persons Entitled to Alimony).
The key change is a substantial increase in the income threshold qualifying for the benefit, which will rise from the current 1,209 złoty to 1,665 złoty per person in the family. This update to the criteria is a direct response to rising minimum wages and the changing economic situation, allowing financial assistance to reach a broader group of those in need.
It's worth remembering the "złoty for złoty" mechanism, which provides flexibility in granting benefits. Under this solution, exceeding the set income limit (currently: 1,209 złoty per person in the family) does not mean immediate loss of the right to support. Instead of completely withdrawing aid, the paid amount is simply reduced by the amount by which the per-person income exceeds the established threshold. This prevents situations where a small pay raise at work would drastically worsen the household budget by losing the entire benefit.
The duration of support is strictly tied to the child's age and education stage. Standardly, assistance is provided until the age of majority, but for those continuing education in schools or higher education institutions, this period extends until the completion of 25 years of age. An exception applies to children with a ruling of significant degree of disability, for whom state financial support has no time limits and is provided indefinitely.
by Admin2 | Apr 10, 2026 | news-en
ATTENTION – THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION from Polish
In its judgment of January 14, 2026 (II SA/Łd 744/25), the Provincial Administrative Court in Łódź confirmed that the fulfillment of even one statutory requirement is sufficient to initiate proceedings to recognize a debtor as having evaded maintenance obligations – in particular, preventing a maintenance interview from being conducted or failing to submit a financial declaration.
The court emphasized that a decision to recognize a debtor as having evaded maintenance obligations may be issued if, over the past six months, the debtor has failed to pay at least 50% of the currently determined maintenance payments each month. Regularity of payments is crucial – subsequent overpayments or earlier higher amounts do not eliminate the failure to pay in specific months. At the same time, it was pointed out that administrative authorities do not examine the validity of the bailiff's findings regarding the ineffectiveness of enforcement – any objections in this regard should be raised in accordance with the procedure applicable to enforcement proceedings.
It is also important that the alimony debtor's citing a difficult health situation does not automatically release them from the obligation to cooperate with the authority. Inaction and failure to respond to requests may be considered a condition for initiating proceedings to deem the debtor to be in default of maintenance obligations.
In conclusion, the ruling confirms the restrictive and formal interpretation of the regulations –
in alimony cases, the systematic fulfillment of the obligation and the debtor's active attitude towards administrative authorities are crucial. As the Court stated in the ruling, "As is clear from the case files, the complainant was not interested in the ongoing proceedings and did not participate in them." Active participation in administrative proceedings at every stage, including appeals proceedings, through familiarity with the case files and evidentiary activity, as well as participation in the proceedings, can have a beneficial impact on the outcome of the case, which is worth remembering.
The judgment is not final.
by Admin2 | Mar 6, 2026 | news-en
ATTENTION – THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION from Polish
The District Court in Toruń, in its ruling of October 23, 2019 (VIII Cz 960/19), indicated that the necessary condition for granting security in alimony cases is the substantiation of the claim, but there is no need to demonstrate a legal interest in granting security. The purpose of security is not to ensure the enforceable enforcement of a future judgment, but to immediately provide the entitled party with means of subsistence. In this respect, security leads to "provisional" satisfaction of the entitled party before the final conclusion of the proceedings.
It is best to submit a request for security directly in the alimony claim as one of the points of the petition. This allows for a quick hearing, often in closed session.
A substantiated claim, on the other hand, means a reasonable assumption of its validity, based on credible allegations and preliminary evidence, without the rigors of a full evidentiary hearing. The court automatically issues an enforceability clause to the decision, enabling enforcement by a bailiff. The security remains in effect until a final judgment is issued or is later set aside or amended by the court of first instance, or by the court of second instance in appeal proceedings – if an appeal is filed by an eligible party. An appeal against the dismissal of the request for security may be filed within one week of service of the decision, after requesting justification. In the cited case, the District Court reversed the decision of the court of first instance, awarding alimony in the amount of PLN 500 per month.
by Admin2 | Feb 14, 2026 | news-en
ATTENTION ! Automatic translation from Polish
The substantive basis for amending a child support order is Article 138 of the Family and Guardianship Code (FGC), which states: "In the event of a change in circumstances, a change in the decision or agreement concerning the child support obligation may be requested."
The District Court in Olsztyn cited this provision in its judgment of December 11, 2019 (VI RCa 206/19). In the present case, the minor plaintiffs, represented by their legal representative, appealed against the District Court's decision, which dismissed their claim for an increase in child support from PLN 950 in total to PLN 2,000 in total per month.
The plaintiffs cited increased justified needs related to growing up, higher living costs resulting from living outside Poland, and the defendant's lack of involvement in their lives beyond financial support. However, the District Court in Olsztyn upheld the District Court's position, finding that there had been no "change in circumstances" within the meaning of Article 138 of the Family and Guardianship Code, which would justify amending the maintenance order. It emphasized that the plaintiffs' mother had voluntarily moved abroad, and the resulting higher living costs could not be passed on to the defendant. The court noted that the maintenance obligation depends not only on the eligible person's needs, but also on the earning and financial capacity of the obligor.
In this context, the common courts also stated: "In the event of a change in circumstances, a request for amendment of the maintenance order or agreement may be made. A change in circumstances should be understood as any changes in the economic status of the parties that affect both the increased and decreased scope of the eligible person's justified needs and the increased or decreased scope of the obligor's earning and financial capacity" (see: Judgment of the Regional Court in Olsztyn of November 6, 2019, file reference VI RCa 253/19). When assessing the validity of a request to increase previously established maintenance payments under Article 138 of the Family and Guardianship Code, emphasis should be placed primarily on comparing the current situation of the entitled parties and the obligated party at the time of the request with that assessed when determining the amount of the payment (see: Judgment of the Regional Court in Sieradz of October 9, 2019, file reference I Ca 411/19). Therefore, a "change in circumstances" should be understood as a change in circumstances relevant to the statutory requirements for the maintenance obligation and the scope of maintenance payments. Not every change in the life situation of the person obligated to pay maintenance or the person entitled to receive it justifies a change in the previous decision. Only circumstances that are permanent and significant in nature and meet the criteria that significantly affect the establishment or scope of the maintenance obligation may be the basis for an adjustment.
by Admin2 | Jan 21, 2026 | news-en
NOTE: translated from Polish!
In the judgment of 8 April 2025 (ref. no. II CSKP 185/23), the Supreme Court referred comprehensively to the possibility of challenging legal acts related to the maintenance obligation in the Paulian complaint procedure. This ruling is in line with the established line of case-law, according to which maintenance activities may also be assessed in terms of detriment to creditors.
The Supreme Court confirmed that both maintenance agreements and settlements concluded before the court are substantive legal transactions which, if they lead to the detriment of creditors, may be rendered ineffective by means of a Paulian complaint. This applies in particular to situations where the maintenance payment has been determined in an amount grossly exceeding the actual needs or despite the lack of statutory prerequisites.
It is worth noting that although alimony enjoys a privileged position in enforcement proceedings, in the case of abuse of this protection, it is possible to demonstrate that a specific action was aimed at harming other creditors. In such cases, as noted by the Supreme Court, the creditor may claim priority satisfaction, demonstrating that the maintenance obligation has expired or has been established artificially, only to protect the debtor's assets.
However, the Supreme Court ruled out the possibility of challenging the judgment awarding alimony itself, pointing out that the Paulian complaint may concern only legal acts, not court decisions. It is worth noting that it is possible to challenge the debtor's actions (e.g. tacit acceptance of the enforcement of unjustified alimony) that result in the transfer of benefits to a third party to the detriment of other creditors.
The conclusion of the ruling is to confirm that the protection of alimony as preferential claims is not absolute. In exceptional situations, when the maintenance obligation is used instrumentally, it is possible to limit it against a specific creditor by means of a Paulian action.
