A big problem is, among others, in a situation where the entrepreneur issued an invoice to a different contractor than he should have, for example to company X, even though the goods were purchased by company Y.
The tax office has recently changed its instructions on what to do in such a situation.
Read also in BUSINESS INSIDER
How has the tax office's position on invoice corrections changed?
It is true that the change in the tax office's position on invoice corrections can be seen in the example of municipalities, but a similar situation applies to entrepreneurs.
The specificity of communes and cities is that the largest local governments have various types of dependent units (e.g. schools, budgetary units of communes). Therefore, the VAT payer is the commune and the invoice is issued to it, but thanks to additional information on the invoice (name and NIP of the so-called third party, e.g. a school, which is a separate workplace and a PIT payer). it is known whose (municipal unit) invoice it is.
Finally, if all the data on the invoice match (including the third party's NIP), the invoice issued for the school (municipal budget unit) goes to the school and not to the commune office.
The problem occurs when the invoice issued in KSeF contains errors, e.g. when it is issued to the wrong entity. However, the same problem applies to purchase invoices received by local government subsidiaries.
A similar problem occurs in companies when the seller issues an invoice using the data of another entity, e.g. company X instead of company Y.
One of the communes submitted an application for an individual interpretation to the director of the National Tax Information and asked what to do in such a situation.
Two options are possible:
1) issue a correction invoice to the original invoice and correct it to zero, and then issue another invoice with the correct data,
2) issue a correction invoice to the original invoice, but only correct the incorrect entity data (the rest remains unchanged).
Initially, the director of KIS issued an individual interpretation (of February 11, 2026, reference number 0113-KDIPT1-3.4012.1091.2025.1.JM), in which he decided that in such a situation the taxpayer must issue a corrective invoice to zero and then another one with the correct data (i.e. as in option 1 above).
The commune did not agree with the interpretation and filed a complaint against it to the provincial administrative court. As a result of the complaint dthe director of KIS re-analyzed the matter and changed his position. Therefore, it issued an amending interpretation of April 13, 2026. (reference number 0113-KDIPT1-3.4012.1091.2025.3.JM) and finally decided that if the invoice contains incorrect data of a third party (e.g. school), a correction invoice is necessary, but only incorrect/incomplete data should be corrected (i.e. proceed as in option 2 above).
What are the negative effects of resetting an invoice to zero and issuing a new one?
As we pointed out in Business Insider, companies should avoid correcting invoices issued in KSeF to zero and re-issuing the invoice, especially if the invoice amounts do not change. This may result in the obligation to pay VAT twice (indicated on the original invoice and the correction invoice), which Janina Fornalik, tax advisor and partner in the MDDP VAT Team, warned against.
— However, some financial and accounting systems do not have the technical possibility to issue a corrective invoice without changing the value on the invoice, e.g. if there is an error in the name or address of the buyer, a change in the description of the service or the payment deadline – explains Janina Fornalik.
The lack of an appropriate system in the company is a big problem. The expert explains that companies deal with this problem by issuing corrective invoices “to zero” and then new invoices with the correct data. However, this is not a good solution to the situation. As Fornalik explained, the tax authorities question the correctness of this method of correction, which may result in questioning the VAT reduction based on the zero correction and, as a result, in showing the VAT due twice.
Author: Łukasz Zalewski, journalist of the Law section, Business Insider Polska
