High-bay warehouse

Until recently, property tax was treated by many taxpayers as a relatively stable and predictable area of ​​tax settlement. However, this situation is now changing significantly. Importantly, this dynamic stems not from legislative changes, but primarily from the evolving interpretation practices of tax authorities.

The turning point was the amendment to the regulations that came into force at the beginning of 2025. It initiated the process of developing a new line of interpretation, under which authorities increasingly qualify certain objects differently for property tax purposes.

A problem that affects many taxpayers

In practice, many taxpayers continue to use the classification adopted years ago, without updating it in light of the new regulations. Meanwhile, the 2025 changes have in some cases directly expanded the scope of taxation, while in others, they have opened the door to a more restrictive interpretation of the regulations by the authorities.

One of the areas where a particularly clear change in approach is visible is  high-bay warehouses .

Warehouse – building or structure?

This issue is of fundamental practical importance. Buildings are taxed according to their usable area, while structures are taxed according to their value. The difference in tax rates can therefore be very significant.

In one of the latest individual interpretations, the Mayor of Poznań took a position that may significantly affect settlement practice in this area.

The case concerned a high-bay warehouse used for storing beer in bottles, cans, and kegs. The facility was set on a foundation, had a roof, building partitions, and technical installations, so at first glance it met the statutory requirements for a building.

Additionally, the structure was used on the basis of a leasing agreement with the possibility of its dismantling after the end of the agreement.

Taxpayer’s argument

The applicant indicated that the facility meets all the conditions for recognition as a building:

• is permanently attached to the ground,
• has a foundation, roof and separate partitions,
• its construction ensures stability and resistance to external factors.

It was also emphasized that the design documentation uses categories specific to buildings (e.g. usable area), and not to objects such as tanks, where capacity is key.

With regard to the issue of determining who is the taxpayer of the property tax on this warehouse, it was argued that due to the leasing nature of the structure and the possibility of its dismantling, the owner of the facility in question (and therefore the taxpayer) is the financing party.

The tax authority’s approach

However, the tax authority adopted a completely different perspective.

While he did not dispute that the facility possesses the structural characteristics of a building, he considered its function and technical parameters to be of decisive importance. In particular, he pointed out that the key parameter of a warehouse is its cubic capacity, which the authority equates to capacity.

According to the authority, the packaging in which the beer was stored (cans, bottles, kegs) only served an auxiliary function, while the main function of the facility was to store large quantities of liquids.

Consequently, the authority determined that the structure was not a typical utility building, but rather served a function similar to that of a reservoir. This, in turn, led to its classification as a structure, and therefore, the structure was taxed at its initial value (2% of its initial value).

However, with regard to the next question, i.e. determining the taxpayer of real estate tax, the authority agreed with the applicant’s position that the taxpayer is the financing party.

Why is this issue so important?

The position presented may have very wide consequences.

If we accept the logic presented by the authority, then in extreme cases it would be possible to recognize as buildings also other warehouses in which the following are stored:

• liquid products,
• bulk materials,
• finished products with specific physical properties.

Such an interpretation would lead to a significant extension of the scope of taxation of buildings and, consequently, to a significant increase in the tax burden on entrepreneurs.

At this time, there is no information on whether the case has been appealed to the Provincial Administrative Court. However, it should be assumed that further litigation is highly likely. The court’s ruling could be crucial for shaping practice in this area.

What does this mean for entrepreneurs?

In the current legal and interpretative situation, it is no longer possible to rely thoughtlessly on the existing classifications.

Therefore, it is recommended to:

• reviewing owned properties and facilities,
• updating the classification of objects made years ago based on current regulations and interpretation practice,
• identification of potential tax risks,
• considering securing your position through individual interpretation.

In many cases, the difference between classifying an object as a building and a structure may mean a multiple increase in tax liability.