Tax delivery error? The Supreme Administrative Court's judgment should change the practice of offices

What was the dispute before the Supreme Administrative Court?

As Jakub Warnieło says, the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (resolution of October 8, 2025, reference number II FSK 895/25) breaks the current, uniform line of jurisprudence, according to which tax authorities have freedom in choosing the channel for delivering letters to representatives. – From the very beginning, we were convinced that this practice was inconsistent with the regulations, which is why we are particularly pleased with the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling – comments Jakub Warnieło.

The dispute came down to whether the tax authority is bound by the address for electronic delivery indicated in the power of attorney granted by the taxpayer, e.g. to a tax advisor or legal advisor. It happens that a specific electronic address is indicated in the power of attorney, e.g. e-Delivery (and previously ePUAP), and the tax authority delivers the letters to the taxpayer's representative to the address in the e-Tax Office.

This means that the representative must follow different channels of communication with public authorities, instead of the one indicated in the power of attorney. Moreover – let's repeat it – an error in delivery may mean that the authority's decision has not entered into legal circulation at all, which has far-reaching consequences.

What did the Supreme Administrative Court rule regarding the delivery of letters to attorneys?

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the tax authority's cassation appeal. Therefore, he agreed with the favorable decision of the Provincial Administrative Court in Olsztyn (resolution of April 9, 2025, ref. no. I SA/Ol 118/25).

The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of October 8, 2025 shows that:

— the provisions regarding attorneys modify the general rules for deliveries via the e-Tax Office,

— the proxy has the right to indicate in the power of attorney an electronic address for delivery – and the authority should deliver letters to this address,

— the tax authority is therefore bound by the address indicated in the power of attorney – it cannot omit it,

— There is an exception to the above rules — if the representative first submitted a power of attorney and indicated the address for service, and later agreed to delivery via the e-Tax Office, then this consent should be treated as an update of the address for delivery (on e-US).

In a key fragment of the judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court explained that the possibility of delivering letters to the e-Tax Office address results from Art. 144 pairs 1a of the Tax Ordinance in connection with Art. 35e of the Act on the National Tax Administration. These regulations specify: general rules regarding deliveries. However, they do not apply to deliveries made to an attorney. The direct provision that relates to the delivery of documents to attorneys is Art. 145 pairs 2 of the Tax Ordinance. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, this is a specific provision, so it must be applied before the general rules. This provision (Article 145, paragraph 2 of the Tax Ordinance) states that if a representative has been appointed, the letters are delivered to the representative at the address indicated in the power of attorney. Recipe therefore, it grants the attorney-in-fact the right to indicate the address at which deliveries are to be made as part of ongoing tax proceedings.

What are the consequences of the Supreme Administrative Court's decision for taxpayers, attorneys and tax authorities?

— The Supreme Administrative Court's ruling may have very practical consequences for all taxpayers. In practice, the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling means that if a specific electronic address is indicated in the power of attorney (e.g. e-Delivery, previously ePUAP), all correspondence from the tax authority should be sent there – comments Jakub Warnieło.

According to the expert, Taxpayers and attorneys should now analyze whether the deliveries in the conducted cases were made correctly – because an error in delivery may mean that the authority's decision did not enter into legal transactions at all. And the tax authorities need to adapt their actions to the position of the Supreme Administrative Court as soon as possible, i.e. start delivering letters to the electronic address indicated in the power of attorney, and not to the e-Tax Office. The point of all this is to ensure that taxpayers are not surprised by correspondence sent to the wrong communication channel, and that the tax authorities are sure that the effectiveness of delivery will not be questioned – adds Jakub Warnieło.

Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of October 8, 2025, ref. no. act II FSK 895/25, final

Author: Łukasz Zalewski, journalist of the Law section of Business Insider Polska