publication
2025-07-23 06:00
Old rings, cash from the 1960s, currency from the East Germany – all this was to explain where the money for the purchase of real estate came from. But only documents count for the tax authorities, and these are missing. The court confirmed: Lack of evidence means revenue from an undisclosed source, which is subject to 75 %. tax. Even several dozen years of savings are no excuse if they cannot be documented.
The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the position of tax authorities. If the taxpayer cannot prove where he had money to buy real estate, The tax office has the right to charge 75 % Tax on the so -called revenues from undisclosed sources. This even applies when the taxpayer claims that the funds came from decades ago – without evidence, only what can be documented.
Money without coverage
The case dealt with by the Supreme Administrative Court concerned the spouses, who in 2016 purchased real estate for over 320,000. zloty. In the course of the explanatory proceedings, however, they could not show a legal source of some of the funds allocated to the purchase. Dziennik Gazeta Prawna wrote about the case for the first time.
Advertisement
Taxpayers explained that the savings came, among others With:
- souvenirs of the woman who died in 1977 – four gold rings and currencies from the GDR (Rubles, brands),
- a woman's work at the parents' farm in the 1960s,
- savings stored in cash due to a lack of trust in banks.
However, the tax authorities considered these explanations unbelievable. Spouses They did not provide any evidence confirming the sale of souvenirs or legal in cash. There were also no documents confirming employment and remuneration from work on a farm several decades ago.
The tax office has set lower savings
The tax office assessed that The couple could have legally accumulated savings in the amount of approx. 243 thousand. zlotywhile in the year of purchase they spent a total of over 46 thousand. PLN more. This was enough to qualify the surplus as income from undisclosed sources, subject to taxation at a rate of 75 percent. Pursuant to art. 25e of the PIT Act.
Originally, the office charged each of the spouses a tax in the amount of over 17,000. zloty. After correction of expenses by the Director of the Tax Administration Chamber, the amount was reduced. The final commitment amounted to over 10,000 PLN per person.
Court: No evidence cannot be an excuse
The spouses appealed against the decision to the Provincial Administrative Court in Łódź, but he dismissed their complaints (reference number I SA/Łd 168/22 and I SA/Łd 169/22). The WSA emphasized that The burden of proof in such matters rests with the taxpayer. Although the court did not rule out that the sources of savings may come from many years ago, it pointed out that they could not be demonstrated by a “splendid claim”.
It is impossible to reconcile the storage of savings from the 1960s with the principles of rationalism, logic and common sense – the court justified, also reminding the loss of the purchasing power of money over time.
Also the Supreme Administrative Court (reference number II FSK 1315/22 and II FSK 1316/22) had no doubt as to the tax authorities' decision. As judge Beata Cieloch emphasized, the tax authorities correctly assessed the evidence, and the obligation to prove the legality of the origin of funds lies entirely with taxpayers.
Document, document, document
The case shows that even Seemingly credible explanations, if they are not supported by evidence, are not relevant to the tax office or the court. This applies especially to large purchases, such as real estate or cars. In practice, this means the necessity:
- collecting evidence of the origin of funds: sales contracts, transfer confirmation, donation acts, loan agreements, bank statements,
- avoiding high -value cash transactions without confirmation funding sources,
- prior preparation of documentationbefore the tax office begins to ask questions himself.
A taxpayer who cannot demonstrate the origin of funds may be severely punished – Even 75 % tax on undisclosed revenues. The matter of spouses who tried to refer to savings from half a century ago shows how important actual evidence is, not just translations. This is another signal that the tax authorities will not be indulgent in the face of undocumented money.
