Tax Interpretations Regarding Crypto – What Did the Tax Authorities Determine at the Beginning of 2026?

Cryptocurrencies have ceased to be a niche. The market is growing and professionalizing year by year, as evidenced by conferences such as the Next Block Expo – and with it, the demands on tax authorities are increasing, requiring them to assess situations that did not even exist a few years ago with greater precision. Staking, loan cards, cryptocurrency payments – all of this raises questions that regulations do not always answer clearly. The tax authorities handle this in their own way: they often "pierce the technological veil" and assess the economic sense of transactions, regardless of how they are technically packaged. Below, I have gathered eleven interpretations from the first four months of 2026 that best illustrate the direction in which the National Tax Information is thinking.

Table of Contents Toggle

• When to Use the NBP Exchange Rate and When to Use Stock Exchange Quotes?
• Compensation After the Collapse of Mt.Gox – Why Is It Tax-Free?
• Theft of Cryptocurrencies as a Cost – What Documents Does the Tax Authority Require?
• NFTs Are Not Virtual Currency – The PCC Tax Trap
• Card Payments in "Borrow" Mode – Why Is It Still a Sale of Crypto?
• Is Staking Considered a Paid Service Under VAT?
• Family Foundations and Crypto – Where Does the 25% Rate Come From?
• CFDs and Futures on Crypto – Why Can't Losses Be Offset?
• Returning from the USA – Which Taxes Can Be Deducted?
• KSeF in Exchanges – When Is Reporting Sales Not Required?
• AI in Crypto Settlements – Why Can't It Replace Dedicated Software?

When to Use the NBP Exchange Rate and When to Use Stock Exchange Quotes? {#When_to_use_the_NBP_exchange_rate_and_when_to_use_stock_exchange_quotes}

The problem usually arises with currency pairs that cannot be directly converted at the central bank's rate – for example, when exchanging crypto for crypto.

The KIS adheres to one principle here: the average NBP exchange rate from the business day preceding the transaction counts. If there is no NBP rate for a given pair, one can refer to stock exchange quotes or aggregators like CoinMarketCap – provided that the same logic is maintained, that is, the rate from the previous day, not from the day of the transaction.

It is this detail – "the previous day" instead of "the transaction day" – that most often eludes investors. For the authority, it is the only acceptable reference point, so it is worth solidifying this once and for all.

Compensation After the Collapse of Mt.Gox – Why Is It Tax-Free? {#Compensation_After_the_Collapse_of_MtGox_%E2%80%93_Why_Is_It_Tax-Free?}

A person who lost funds on the Japanese exchange Mt.Gox over a decade ago recovered them as part of a court rehabilitation plan – partially in euros, partially in cryptocurrencies. The question was: does this need to be taxed?

No, it does not. The KIS recognized this benefit as having a compensatory nature, and thus exempt from income tax – both in the capital and interest portions. There is also no obligation to report this in the annual tax return.

This is one of the more interesting, taxpayer-friendly lines of interpretation in recent times. However, the key is to skillfully prove the compensatory nature of the payout – in this case, documentation from the Japanese court was sufficient.

Theft of Cryptocurrencies as a Cost – What Documents Does the Tax Authority Require? {#Theft_of_Cryptocurrencies_as_a_Cost_%E2%80%93_What_Documents_Does_the_Tax_Authority_Require?}

A victim of a hacking attack lost funds from their wallet and wanted to know if they could recognize this loss as a cost of obtaining income.

KIS allows this, but under specific conditions: the theft must be definitive and fully documented, with the key document being a valid decision to discontinue the investigation due to the perpetrator not being detected. Only the year in which this decision becomes valid is the year of recognizing the cost.

Previously, the tax authorities rarely made such concessions. A mere screenshot from the blockchain is insufficient -- one must go through the entire process: reporting to the police, investigation, formal discontinuation. Only this opens the way to reduce profits by the value of the loss.

NFTs Are Not Virtual Currency -- The PCC Tax Trap

A person trading NFT tokens asked whether the same rules apply as with Bitcoin.

Not exactly. KIS consistently treats NFTs as property rights, not virtual currencies -- which means the obligation to pay PCC tax (1-2%) upon purchase. The exchange of cryptocurrency for NFTs is treated as a sale of crypto, thus generating income.

This is one of the more tricky situations in the market. Indeed, there is an exemption from PCC for exchanges up to 6000 PLN, but this limit is calculated separately for each transaction -- so with a large volume, it is easy to fall into a spiral of tax arrears, which investors usually forget.

Card Payments in "Borrow" Mode -- Why Is This Still a Sale of Crypto?

An investor using a trading card in "borrow" mode argued that since the exchange does not sell his crypto but provides a loan against it, the payment with borrowed stablecoins should be tax-neutral.

KIS disagreed. It stated that since the taxpayer initiates the card payment to settle his obligation, at the moment of payment, there is a taxable disposal of virtual currency. The loan is merely a technical wrapper -- economically, it is simply consumption of profits from crypto.

This is a very pro-fiscal approach: it does not matter what mechanism operates "under the hood" of the smart contract, but the mere fact that thanks to crypto, you paid for something in the real world. Each such payment must be reported as a disposal of cryptocurrency.

Is Staking Considered a Paid Service Under VAT?

A participant in the Proof of Stake mechanism, receiving rewards for validating blocks, asked whether he must account for this under VAT.

In a rather controversial interpretation, KIS concluded that yes -- staking is a paid service provided to the network/protocol, and this service does not benefit from VAT exemption.

This position raises doubts, as it is difficult to identify a specific, identified recipient of such a service on-chain. Nevertheless, for the tax authorities, staking has formally become a "service," which, with larger scales of rewards, creates an obligation to register for VAT -- practically difficult for an individual to bear. It is worth observing whether administrative courts will change this line.

Family Foundation and Crypto -- Where Does the 25% Rate Come From?

Someone who established a family foundation hoping for a zero CIT rate wanted to actively trade cryptocurrencies within it.

KIS excluded trading in virtual currencies from the catalog of activities covered by the exemption -- considering it an activity outside the permitted scope of the family foundation, resulting in a punitive 25% CIT rate.

This is an important change in perspective when planning holding structures: a family foundation works well for wealth succession, but as a tool for active cryptocurrency trading, it is now less tax-efficient than regular reporting as an individual (19%).

CFDs and Futures on Crypto - Why Can't Losses Be Offset?
A person trading simultaneously in futures contracts on crypto (settled in stablecoins) and "regular" cryptocurrencies asked whether a loss from one could be offset against a gain from the other.

It cannot. The tax authorities separate these two sources -- futures contracts fall into section C of the PIT-38 tax return as derivative instruments, while cryptocurrency trading goes into section E as virtual currencies. There is no possibility of offsetting between these baskets.

In practice, one can have a real loss across the entire portfolio and still pay tax on profitable positions in contracts -- because they cannot be reduced by expenses incurred in purchasing "physical" crypto. This is one of the more unfair constructions of the current system.

Returning from the USA - Which Taxes Can Be Deducted?
A person returning to Poland after years of working in the USA, where they paid tax on capital gains from crypto, wanted to deduct it in Poland to avoid double taxation.

The KIS clarified: only the federal income tax paid in the USA is deductible. State taxes are not deductible in the Polish return.

This is a detail that can easily be overlooked in the settlements of returnees -- one must precisely separate the amounts paid in the USA into federal and state parts, as confusing this exposes one to liabilities to the Polish tax authorities.

KSeF in Currency Exchanges - When Is Reporting Sales Not Required?
An entrepreneur running a cryptocurrency exchange was concerned that every transaction with an individual customer would have to be reported to the National e-Invoice System in real-time.

The KIS dispelled this: selling cryptocurrencies to consumers (individuals not running a business) is not subject to the obligation of registration in the KSeF.

This is a significant relief for the retail sector -- mass, small transactions at exchanges will not be paralyzed by the requirements of the new e-invoice system, as long as the other party is a private customer.

AI in Crypto Settlements - Why It Can't Replace Dedicated Software?
A taxpayer, wanting to save money, tried to calculate tax on cryptocurrency transactions using ChatGPT, hoping that the technology was accurate enough.

Tests showed otherwise: AI can pull rates from incorrect, illiquid sources, does not generate a complete tax report that could serve as evidence against the tax authorities, and makes mistakes when calculating airdrops.

Technology can be helpful, but in its current form, AI poses too great a risk when it comes to calculating actual tax amounts. Reliable reporting requires dedicated software that connects via API and operates on strict, verified tax algorithms -- AI can at best assist in interpreting regulations, not in calculating the PIT-38 itself.