Reimbursement of costs for equipment needed by the employee to perform remote work without PIT | PRO HR Tax View
2021.02.18
In the tax PRO HR Alert of December the 18th, 2020, we informed you about the tax interpretation in which the Director of the National Tax Information (DKIS) stated that the equivalents paid to employees in connection with remote work during the pandemic do not generate income from the employment relationship.
DKIS in the interpretation of February the 1st, 2021 went a step further. He stated that in the case of employees who work remotely during a pandemic, the reimbursement of the costs of purchase of equipment necessary for the operation will also not result in their income being generated within the meaning of the PIT Act.
In this case, the interpretation was requested by the company that instructed employees to work remotely. The company has created the regulations for remote work, which lists the most important rules related to the performance of work in this mode. According to the regulations, the employee is entitled to reimbursement of the costs for the purchased equipment necessary to equip the remote work station, i.e. a chair, table / desk, footrest, document holder, first aid kit and a powder extinguisher (closed catalogue). The amount of the refund is a maximum of PLN 800 gross and is payable to each employee once. The refund is made on the basis of a personal invoice or a personal receipt, after prior approval of the expense by the supervisor. Importantly, the equipment purchased by the employee is the property of the employee and will remain his property even after the termination of the employment relationship.
This is the second such liberal interpretation of the DKIS regarding the taxation of broadly understood funds financed by employees in connection with their remote work during a pandemic. We would like to point out that neither in the PIT Act nor in the Labour Code there are provisions which would directly result in the lack of income on the part of the employee or his exemption from PIT in the described situation. We recommend a cautious approach to the position expressed in the discussed interpretation.