MDR after 1 October 2026 – what still has to be reported

From October, many businesses will be asking whether MDR, i.e., the reporting of tax arrangements, still applies. It does, but within a narrower scope. The amending act of 29 May 2026 limits reporting to cross-border arrangements, removes the role of the supporting entity, MDR-2 and the statutory obligation to have an internal procedure, and moves MDR-3 to an annual cycle. It does not, however, close matters that began earlier. We explain what applies in each of the two periods, how to classify a cross-border tax arrangement and what to do with the procedure in the business and in the law firm.

Two periods, one amending act

Until 30 September 2026 you apply the existing Chapter 11a of Division III of the Tax Ordinance (Ordynacja podatkowa, OP), and from 1 October 2026 – as a rule – its new wording, under which only a cross-border arrangement is a tax arrangement.

The changes to Chapter 11a are made by Article 1(24)–(39) of the Act of 29 May 2026 amending the Act – Tax Ordinance and certain other acts (ustawa z dnia 29 maja 2026 r. o zmianie ustawy — Ordynacja podatkowa oraz niektórych innych ustaw, the MDR Amendment Act; Dz.U. z 2026 r. poz. 846). Under Article 35, the Act enters into force, as a rule, on 1 October 2026; the exceptions provided for in it do not bring the new system into operation any earlier.

MDR scope and obligations in the two periods

We describe the consequences for mergers, divisions and contributions in kind in the article MDR from 1 October 2026 — the end of domestic reportable arrangements in reorganisations. Before 1 October, take stock of the matters in progress.

Cross-border element: a condition of the definition, not the counterparty’s address

From 1 October 2026 you begin the analysis by asking whether the arrangement concerns more than one Member State, or a Member State and a third country, and whether it meets any of the five statutory conditions.

The new Article 86a § 2(13)(a)–(e) of the Tax Ordinance lists them as alternatives. The participants are not resident in the same country, or one of them is resident in several countries. The arrangement concerns the business activity of a foreign permanent establishment, or a participant carries on business activity in another country without being resident or having a permanent establishment there. Finally, the arrangement may affect the automatic exchange of information or the identification of the beneficial owner. The construction derives from Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 (DAC6), which added to Directive 2011/16/EU the definition of a cross-border arrangement and the reporting obligation under Article 8ab. Until 30 September, the cross-border element was determined by Article 86a § 1(12) in conjunction with § 3 of the Tax Ordinance.

The error can run both ways. A Polish company may reorganise the business activity of its foreign permanent establishment – both parties to the agreement have Polish addresses, yet the condition in point (c) may be met. Conversely, a foreign shareholder who does not participate in the arrangement does not make it cross-border.

The authority may argue that a transaction within an international group is cross-border by nature. This argument is not decisive, because what is assessed is the specific arrangement and the specific condition, not the ownership structure. Moreover, the new definition has no value threshold – even a small project may be a tax arrangement.

In the file note, state the countries, the participants, the lettered point of the provision and the document confirming residence or the permanent establishment as at the date of the event. A cross-border element does not by itself mean an obligation – a hallmark is needed.

Hallmarks and the main benefit test

From 1 October 2026 a cross-border tax arrangement arises through a generic hallmark whose definition includes the main benefit test, or through a specific hallmark that does not require that test.

The former Article 86a § 1(10) of the Tax Ordinance recognised a third route: other specific hallmarks with domestic thresholds, e.g., a non-resident’s income from the arrangement exceeding PLN 25,000,000 in a calendar year (point 1(c)). The new provisions remove it. In the generic hallmark of cross-border payments between related entities, the rate threshold falls from “less than 5%” (translation by the author) to no higher than 1%; cases of no tax and of exemption remain covered (Article 86a § 2(8)(h)). The specific hallmark of a transfer of functions, risks or assets – where the projected earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) are lower than 50% of the earnings without the transfer – now requires a cross-border transfer (point 15(j)).

The test changes as well. The former Article 86a § 2 asked whether an entity acting reasonably “could justifiably choose a different course of action”. The new Article 86a § 2(5) refers to the benefit as the main effect, or one of the main effects, that can reasonably be expected.

The authority’s approach to date is illustrated by the individual tax ruling of the Director of the National Revenue Information Service (Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, the Director of the KIS) of 10 October 2025, no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4017.1.2021.19.S/SP. The authority treated the sale of receivables by a credit union (kasa oszczędnościowo-kredytowa) to a domestic securitisation fund as a tax arrangement, citing the main benefit test and the generic hallmark in Article 86a § 1(6)(f). The business argument was not enough: “The authority does not dispute the Credit Union’s assertion that the presented course of action with regard to the receivables it holds is the best solution for it; however, this also means that it is the tax advantage that is the main benefit, or one of the main benefits, which the Credit Union expects to obtain in connection with this arrangement”. A similar, purely domestic arrangement arising after 30 September 2026 falls outside the new definition.

The authority may carry this line of reasoning over to cross-border tax arrangements: an option without the benefit existed, so the test is met. In our view, the new wording does not settle this, because it does not repeat the formula of an alternative course of action. A business purpose alone is not enough – economic rationale and a significant tax advantage can coexist. In the file note, therefore, keep separate the tax effect, its weight in the decision and the legal assessment, on the basis of documents from the time of the decision. Do not carry the old thresholds over into the new forms.

The promoter takes over the functions of the supporting entity

From 1 October 2026 the supporting entity is not a separate role, but anyone who provides aid, assistance or advice and knows or should know of their involvement in a tax arrangement may be a promoter.

Previously, Article 86a § 1(8) of the Tax Ordinance described the promoter by function – as a person or entity “that designs, offers, makes available or implements an arrangement or manages the implementation of an arrangement”. The supporting entity was defined in point 18. The new Article 86a § 2(11) combines both functions and requires a link with the European Union, e.g., residence, a permanent establishment or professional membership in a Member State. Where the promoter’s activities are performed by an employee, the employer is the promoter (§ 6).

The functional approach is illustrated by the ruling of the Director of the KIS of 19 September 2025, no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4017.10.2021.21.S/AS. The authority held that “in this situation, the promoter may be both the Advisory Company itself and the natural person responsible in substance and functionally for the given service or project and for the shape of the advice”. Article 86e § 1 of the Tax Ordinance exempts the shareholder from the obligation if the company names him or her in the information and informs him or her in writing of the tax arrangement number (NSP), with confirmation of its assignment. After the reform, the exemption from duplicate reporting requires, among other things, proof of reporting by another promoter in Poland or in another Member State (Article 86e § 1–1b).

The authority may claim that every former supporting entity becomes a promoter by operation of law. This argument is not decisive, because Article 23 requires the new definition to be met, including the knowledge condition. This works both ways: a clause stating “the service does not cover MDR” does not remove a role that arises from the statute.

For each former supporting entity, carry out the new test and record the extent of its knowledge, the date on which it acquired that knowledge and its link with the arrangement. If you support a project on instruction without an NSP or proof of reporting, and you see the possibility of a tax arrangement, you may request from the instructing party a written statement that the arrangement is not a tax arrangement. The reply must be given without delay and in any event within 7 days (Article 86b § 1a–1f).

Information and deadlines: MDR-2 disappears, MDR-3 once a year

You still submit the information on a tax arrangement (MDR-1) within 30 days of the earliest event, while from 1 October 2026 the information on the application of a tax arrangement (MDR-3) is filed once a year.

The 30-day time limit runs from the making available, the making ready for implementation or the first step in implementation (Article 86b § 1 of the Tax Ordinance). The new Article 86j § 1 sets the MDR-3 deadline at the end of the fourth month after the tax year in which the beneficiary performed activities forming part of the tax arrangement or derived a benefit from it. Also removed is § 4, which excluded signature by a proxy; you will assess the signature and the power of attorney under Articles 86n and 86na. The NSP is assigned within 14 days of receipt of correct information, and its assignment confirms the classification of the tax arrangement, not the lawfulness of the tax settlements (Article 86g).

The National Revenue Administration (Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa) page “MDR structures and reports”, updated on 21 July 2026, lists new templates for MDR-1, MDR-3 and MDR-4 – with no MDR-2 equivalent.

Hypothetical example: the beneficiary’s tax year coincides with the calendar year and it performed activities forming part of a cross-border tax arrangement in 2026. The year ends on 31 December 2026, so the MDR-3 deadline falls on 30 April 2027.

The individual ruling route also disappears. The ruling of 19 September 2025 was issued following the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, NSA) of 9 April 2025, case ref. III FSK 27/25. The Court set aside the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, WSA) in Poznań and the orders issued on leaving the application without consideration. From 1 October, Article 14b § 2a(4) of the Tax Ordinance excludes the provisions of Chapter 11a from the subject matter of an application for an individual tax ruling. Article 20 of the MDR Amendment Act preserves the old rules for certain proceedings initiated earlier and not yet concluded.

Do not treat every refusal to assign an NSP as confirmation that there is no tax arrangement – the protective effect of Article 86i § 7 concerns a refusal on the grounds that there is no tax arrangement, not on the grounds of deficiencies in the information. Document performance of the obligation with the official confirmation of receipt (UPO), not with the date on which the file was saved.

Transitional provisions: each obligation has its own date

The date of 1 October 2026 does not divide a project into “old” and “new” – the applicable provisions are determined by the type of obligation and the transitional provision.

For matters in progress, four rules of the MDR Amendment Act are key:

• Article 24: the existing rules apply to obligations under the former Article 86b § 1 and Article 86c § 1 and 2 of the Tax Ordinance whose deadline “expires on 30 October 2026”.
• Article 25: information on application submitted from 1 October is subject to the new Article 86j § 1.
• Article 26: no information on application is submitted for arrangements other than cross-border that were reported before 1 October.
• Article 27: further instances of making a standardised arrangement available after that date are subject to the new Article 86f § 4.

Hypothetical example: making available on 30 September 2026, with no earlier event. The period from 1 to 30 October is 30 days, so the deadline expires on Friday 30 October – a case covered expressly by Article 24. You file MDR-1 under the existing rules, even though you do so in October. Where the arrangement is made available on 29 September, the deadline expires on 29 October, outside the letter of Article 24. Whether the obligation is then performed under the old provisions depends on an intertemporal analysis: the moment the obligation arose and the nature of the provisions being amended. The mere fact that it is not covered by Article 24 is not enough to regard the obligation as having lapsed.

The condition in Article 26 requires proof of dispatch, not a completed form. An arrangement other than cross-border reported on 25 September benefits from that provision; one reported on 20 October no longer does, and requires a separate analysis.

The authority may read Article 24 broadly, as a rule for all deadlines expiring “by 30 October”; the taxpayer may take the view that obligations outside its wording have lapsed. Neither reading follows directly from the statute. We recommend keeping the original classification and documenting the analysis rather than deleting the entry from the register. Assess past failures under Article 2 of the Fiscal Penal Code on the more lenient law – without assuming an amnesty and without prejudging whether the act is punishable.

A timeline of obligations with examples is set out in the e-book Mandatory disclosure rules (MDR) in restructurings: analysis of obligations and transitional provisions. As at 1 October, divide matters into three groups: completed (Article 26 and proof), arising earlier and not performed (dates and Article 24), and new (the new scope).

Professional secrecy: a wider scope of exemption, a new addressee of the notification

An advocate (adwokat), legal advisor (radca prawny), tax advisor (doradca podatkowy) and patent attorney (rzecznik patentowy) may still refrain from reporting on grounds of professional secrecy, but from 1 October 2026 they notify the instructing party, and the exemption is not limited to non-standardised arrangements.

The new Article 86b § 4 of the Tax Ordinance covers these professions and persons practising a profession under a title referred to in Directive 98/5/EC, where reporting would breach secrecy. Paragraph 4a requires them to inform the instructing promoter or, where there is none, the instructing beneficiary in writing of the obligation and of the fact that the information has not been submitted. They must do so without delay and in any event within 7 days of the time limit starting to run. A notified beneficiary files the report itself, even if it disagrees with the promoter’s assessment (Article 86c § 1(3) and § 2). Where the notification arrives after the time limit has expired, the beneficiary acts without delay and in any event within 14 days of receiving it (§ 5). The MDR Amendment Act also amends the Act on Tax Advisory Services (ustawa o doradztwie podatkowym), so you determine the scope of a tax advisor’s secrecy under both acts.

Until 30 September, the range of professions is explained in the general tax ruling of the Minister of Finance (Minister Finansów) of 5 March 2025, no. DTS5.8092.2.2025. Citing the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-694/20 and C-623/22, the Minister stated that an exempt promoter or supporting entity is: “a) advocate, b) legal advisor, c) tax advisor, d) patent attorney”. There, the exemption concerns arrangements other than standardised arrangements and does not cover professions not authorised to represent clients before a court.

The authority may challenge reliance on secrecy by an accounting firm, a statutory auditor or a bank – and it finds support for this in that ruling, which is why this proposition concerns only the professions listed. A contractual confidentiality clause is not professional secrecy.

Replace the old template letter with a notification under Article 86b § 4a: identify the arrangement, the basis of the role and of the protection, the fact that no report has been filed and the addressee’s obligation, and then keep proof of delivery.

Internal procedure and sanctions: what disappears and what remains

The repeal of Articles 86l and 86m of the Tax Ordinance abolishes the obligation to have an internal procedure and the penalty for not having one, but not the reporting obligations or Article 80f of the Fiscal Penal Code – the procedure is worth rebuilding, not dismantling.

Until 30 September, Article 86l covers certain legal persons and organisational units that are promoters, employ promoters or actually pay them remuneration, and Article 86m provides for a financial penalty. From 1 October both provisions are repealed (Article 1(36) of the MDR Amendment Act). Article 80f of the Fiscal Penal Code remains: in the basic cases up to 720 daily rates, up to 240 where an invalidated NSP is used, and in a less serious case – a fiscal petty offence.

The procedure also served an evidential function. In the ruling of 19 September 2025, the authority linked the shareholder’s exemption to his or her being informed of the NSP in writing, “e.g., in the manner set out in the internal procedure introduced in the company for counteracting failures to comply with the obligation to provide information on tax arrangements”. This function does not disappear together with the obligation.

The authority may treat every delay as a fiscal offence with an upper limit of 720 daily rates. This argument is not decisive: liability is personal and requires fault and a determination of who actually dealt with the entity’s financial affairs (Article 9 § 3 of the Fiscal Penal Code). Once a failure has come to light, consider voluntary disclosure (czynny żal) under Article 16 of the Fiscal Penal Code.

In the business, introduce a cross-border element filter at the start of a project, a register of decisions with dates and evidence, and a calendar for the annual MDR-3. In the document, separate the statutory requirement from the voluntary standard. In the law firm, add templates for the notification under Article 86b § 4a and for the request for a statement under § 1a, as well as a role test for support services. Do not delete evidence of decisions taken before 1 October.

The most common mistake

The most common mistake is to assume that after 1 October 2026 MDR has “ceased to apply” and to wind down the process together with the procedure.

The management board hears about the end of the procedure and of the reporting of domestic tax arrangements, the tax department closes the register, and the law firm stops asking about a foreign element. Meanwhile, the group transfers functions to a related company in another Member State or borrows from a foreign related entity, and the interest is exempt from tax in the hands of the lender. These are still potential cross-border tax arrangements with a 30-day deadline. Matters under Article 24 with a deadline of 30 October 2026 and the annual MDR-3 also drop out of sight.

The result may be acts punishable under Article 80f of the Fiscal Penal Code and a lack of evidence in an audit, including for the condition in Article 26. So change the procedure instead of removing it, and in communications write “MDR limited to cross-border tax arrangements”, not “MDR abolished”.

Summary

1. Assign the version of the law separately to each obligation – classification, MDR-1, notifications and MDR-3 – and check Articles 23–27 of the MDR Amendment Act.
2. First examine the cross-border element under the new Article 86a § 2(13)(a)–(e) of the Tax Ordinance, and then the hallmark.
3. Carry out a new role test for former supporting entities and replace the templates of notifications relating to professional secrecy.
4. Plan the annual MDR-3 for cross-border tax arrangements – where the tax year is the calendar year, for 2026 by 30 April 2027.
5. Rebuild the procedure instead of removing it, and keep evidence of decisions taken before 1 October 2026.

Sources cited

All quotations from Polish-language sources — statutes, tax rulings and court judgments — are given here in the author's translation; the Polish wording is authoritative.

• Individual tax ruling of the Director of the National Revenue Information Service of 19 September 2025, no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4017.10.2021.21.S/AS – a shareholder of an advisory company who is responsible in substance for the service may be a promoter alongside the company; the exemption from submitting information under Article 86e § 1 of the Tax Ordinance requires the shareholder to be named in the company’s information and to be informed of the NSP in writing; the applicant’s position held to be incorrect. https://eureka.mf.gov.pl/informacje/podglad/659510
• Individual tax ruling of the Director of the National Revenue Information Service of 10 October 2025, no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4017.1.2021.19.S/SP – the sale of receivables by a cooperative savings and credit union to a securitisation fund as a tax arrangement (main benefit test, generic hallmark under Article 86a § 1(6)(f), qualified beneficiary); the applicant’s position held to be incorrect. https://eureka.mf.gov.pl/informacje/podglad/662381
• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 9 April 2025, case ref. III FSK 27/25 – setting aside the judgment of the WSA in Poznań of 26 September 2024, case ref. I SA/Po 392/24, and the orders of the Director of the KIS issued on leaving without consideration an application for an individual tax ruling concerning the obligation to report a tax arrangement; the judgment was taken into account in ruling no. 0114-KDIP2-2.4017.10.2021.21.S/AS. https://eureka.mf.gov.pl/informacje/podglad/659510
• General tax ruling of the Minister of Finance of 5 March 2025, no. DTS5.8092.2.2025, on the “legally protected professional secrecy” of the promoter and the supporting entity under the provisions on tax arrangements (Dz.Urz. MF z 2025 r. poz. 14) – the range of professions entitled to the exemption from reporting on grounds of professional secrecy and the limitation of the exemption to arrangements other than standardised arrangements. https://www.gov.pl/web/finanse/interpretacja-ogolna-nr-dts5809222025-ministra-finansow-z-dnia-5-marca-2025-r-w-sprawie-prawnie-chronionej-tajemnicy-zawodowej-promotora-i-wspomagajacego-na-gruncie-przepisow-o-schematach-podatkowych
• Ministry of Finance (Ministerstwo Finansów) – National Revenue Administration, “MDR structures and reports” (Struktury i sprawozdania MDR), version of the page of 21 July 2026 – the MDR-1 (2026/07/21/14335), MDR-3 (2026/07/21/14336) and MDR-4 (2026/07/21/14337) templates applicable from 1 October 2026 and the periods of application of the existing structures. https://www.gov.pl/web/kas/struktury-mdr

Related materials

• White list, split payment and due diligence – payments that protect costs and VAT
• MDR przy restrukturyzacjach (Mandatory disclosure rules (MDR) in restructurings: analysis of obligations and transitional provisions) – an e-book in the Biblioteka Restrukturyzacji series; the PDF is available free of charge in the E-books section

Legal basis: Act of 29 August 1997 – Tax Ordinance (consolidated text: Dz.U. z 2026 r. poz. 622, as amended): in the wording in force until 30 September 2026 – Article 86a § 1(1), (6), (8), (10), (12) and (18), § 2–4, Article 86b § 1 and § 4–7, Article 86c § 1 and 2, Article 86e § 1, Article 86j, Article 86l, Article 86m; in the wording in force from 1 October 2026 – Article 14b § 2a(4), Article 86a § 1, § 2(5), (8), (11), (13) and (15), § 6, Article 86b § 1, § 1a–1f and § 4–4a, Article 86c § 1(3), § 2 and § 5, Article 86e § 1–1b, Article 86f § 4, Article 86g, Article 86i § 7, Article 86j § 1, Article 86n, Article 86na; Act of 29 May 2026 amending the Act – Tax Ordinance and certain other acts (Dz.U. z 2026 r. poz. 846): Article 1(24)–(39), Article 8(2), Article 20, Articles 23–27 and 35; Act of 10 September 1999 – Fiscal Penal Code (consolidated text: Dz.U. z 2025 r. poz. 633, as amended): Article 2, Article 9 § 3, Article 16, Article 80f; Act of 5 July 1996 on tax advisory services (consolidated text: Dz.U. z 2021 r. poz. 2117): Article 37 (professional secrecy); the Act is amended by the MDR Amendment Act from 1 October 2026; Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements (OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1): Article 1 – definitions added to Article 3 of Directive 2011/16/EU (among other things: cross-border arrangement, intermediary, relevant taxpayer), Article 8ab of Directive 2011/16/EU, Annex IV (main benefit test and hallmarks).