A controversial way to pay taxes. They're tearing down the roof to avoid paying.

• Investors seeking to avoid paying tax on buildings undergoing demolition are seeking tax rulings from the tax authorities. However, these rulings are often inconsistent, reports Prawo.pl.
• In Wrocław, the mayor decided that after the permanent and complete removal of the roof during the demolition process, the building would no longer constitute a structure subject to property tax. In Kraków, on the other hand, it was noted that redevelopment does not always result in the construction of a new building, which would then trigger a tax liability.
• "Case law has developed a line of reasoning according to which only the complete and permanent removal of a roof from a building causes it to cease to be a building. This leads to the conclusion that a building has a roof until it is completely removed, dismantled, or demolished," Dominika Jurek, an attorney at the LTCA law firm, told Prawo.pl.

Prawo.pl reports that investors, wanting to avoid paying tax, are applying to local officials for tax interpretations, in which they are waiting for information on whether it is possible to avoid paying tax in the event of demolition of the building's roof.

Let us recall that, according to the Construction Law, a building is a construction object that must be permanently attached to the ground, separated from space by means of building partitions and have a foundation and a roof.

Interpretations by authorities regarding the tax on buildings undergoing roof demolition vary. In Wrocław, the mayor ruled in an interpretation (WPO-DNT.310.1.1.2025.PR) that after the permanent and complete removal of a roof during the demolition process, the building will no longer constitute a structure subject to property tax.

However, not every interpretation is the same. In Krakow, it was recognized that the reconstruction procedure itself does not imply that the building will cease to exist.

There is no doubt that, if necessary, during a reconstruction, the investor may temporarily dismantle the roof, walls, or other structural elements in order to replace, repair, or make appropriate modifications to the planned reconstruction. However, reconstruction involves construction work on the existing building and does not involve its demolition. Reconstruction will also not result in the construction of a new building, which will only trigger a tax liability.

- indicated in the interpretation of April 12, 2022 (PD-03-4.3120.8.2.2022.GK), which is quoted by Prawo.pl.

Dominika Jurek, an attorney at LTCA, reminds Prawo.pl that a damaged or destroyed roof does not eliminate tax liability . She points to the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of January 31, 2025 (III FSK 1002/23), in which the judges found that damage to or partial removal of a roof does not mean that a given structure does not have one (and therefore ceases to be a building within the meaning of the Tax Act).

Case law confirms that a roof is an essential element of the definition of a building – its absence means that the structure ceases to be a building within the meaning of the tax law. At the same time, a clear distinction is made between partial removal or poor condition of a roof (which does not eliminate tax liability) and permanent and complete dismantling, which effectively ends taxation.

- emphasizes Mariusz Aniszewski, senior consultant at TPA Poland for Prawo.pl.

The case law has developed a line of reasoning according to which only the complete and permanent removal of a roof from a building causes it to cease to be a building. This leads to the conclusion that a building has a roof until it is completely removed, dismantled, or demolished.

- summarizes attorney Dominika Jurek.