I see a heated discussion has broken out
. Perhaps I’ll try to clarify the information.
First and foremost, a single Individual Tax Ruling relates to a fairly precisely defined ‘economic event’, to which I wish to apply a specific flat-rate when invoicing such a contract.
My most common jobs involve carrying out full engineering work for automation integrators, who in turn physically implement the designed control systems for their clients – manufacturers of machinery or production lines (“hardware”).
These are new devices, not repairs to old ones or maintenance work.
The scope of a typical job for me includes
all of the following at the same time (or almost all of them, as sometimes without schematics) the points listed a few posts above, about which I enquired with the National Tax Information Service.
In other words, not a single activity, such as ‘drawing a diagram’ or ‘writing a PLC programme’, but a commission covering the full scope of the activities listed.
The problem was that I once received an interpretation from the Central Statistical Office (GUS) which suggested that:
1/ I should treat the full scope of such activities as ‘design’ and apply classification 71.12....., – hence a flat-rate of 14 per cent
2/ whereas, in the option without diagrams, it is ‘programming’ like IT and I should use classification 62.01.11.0 – and therefore a flat-rate of 12%.
I had always had doubts about the interpretation issued by the Central Statistical Office (GUS) (in fact, I’ve written about this in many previous posts). For this reason, I decided to check what the Tax Office would say on the matter.
In its interpretation, the Tax Office agreed with my position that PLC programming within such a full scope of work (where it is only one of the activities carried out) does not constitute programming in the IT sense, and that I may apply grouping 33… to such a full scope of work, rather than 62.... (especially as PLC and robot programming is explicitly listed somewhere within group 33...)
I would like to emphasise once again that the Tax Office’s interpretation applies to this scope as a whole, and not to each individual part.
Therefore, it makes no sense to include everything “under the sun” in group 33… in a single enquiry to the Tax Information Service (KIS), as there is probably no such assignment that
simultaneously contains all these activities.
And the issued interpretation only provides protection in relation to the question asked as a whole.
So, for example, if I receive a commission solely to draw a diagram (which does happen), I cannot apply the 8.5% rate and rely on the issued interpretation; instead, I must classify this as ‘design’ and apply 14%.
I’m not sure how it works in the case of a commission involving only PLC programming – to be on the safe side, I think I’d classify it as IT and apply the 12 per cent rate – but I don’t tend to come across such cases. If I had a lot of such work, I’d ask the Tax Chamber for another interpretation, because ‘programming’ is, after all, literally listed in category 33... .
misiek1111 wrote: All activities aimed at commissioning a machine can be classified as part of its repair and maintenance.
However, I would also like to point out here that being creative when describing invoiced activities in the era of KSEF is risky.
For example, I might enter “bottling machine servicing” on the invoice, whilst my client (who subcontracts the work to me) (the engineering is done by someone else, whilst he builds the cabinet and carries out the electrical installation), the manufacturer of the machine itself will state ‘control system installation’ on the invoice. And something doesn’t add up...
, flat rate 8.5%.
