The decision in this regard will lie with the taxpayer. The obligation to report to the Head of the NRA tax issues that could become a source of dispute with the tax authority means that the taxpayer can consult any arising doubts regarding the application of tax law with the Head of the NRA on an ongoing basis. In the event of interpretation doubts regarding the application of tax law, the taxpayer should present the given issue to the Head of the NRA, who will take a position in this regard. If the taxpayer agrees with it, a tax agreement will be concluded. The taxpayer will be obliged to report these issues only in the event of exceeding the materiality threshold, which does not mean that below this threshold the taxpayer cannot request the Head of the NRA to take a position. Furthermore, as part of the cooperation after signing the agreement, regular meetings will be organised, during which the taxpayer's plans and the associated tax risks will be discussed. Additionally, it should be clarified that after the agreement is concluded, reporting obligations will rest with the taxpayer, and the information obtained in this way will be analysed as part of the monitoring audit. If the Head of the NRA concludes that a given activity, in their assessment, may raise doubts regarding the correct application of tax law, they will request the taxpayer to provide the necessary explanations on the matter. Therefore, as part of the audit activities undertaken, the Head of the NRA will also verify whether any issues raising tax doubts have arisen.

Within the meaning of Art. 3, point 18 of the Tax Ordinance Act, an entity participating in the Cooperative Compliance Programme is exempt from reporting domestic tax schemes.

Moreover, the definition contained in Art. 86a, sec. 1, point 4, letters a and b of the Tax Ordinance Act applies only to the fulfilment of the MDR obligation. In contrast, the definition contained in Art. 3, point 18 of the Tax Ordinance Act applies to the entire Tax Ordinance Act, including the Cooperative Compliance Programme. Therefore, a benefit subject to reporting within the framework of the Cooperative Compliance Programme should be understood as:

1. the non-arising of a tax liability, the deferral of the arising of a tax liability, or the reduction of its amount,
2. the arising or overstatement of a tax loss,
3. the arising of a tax overpayment or the right to a tax refund, or the overstatement of the amount of a tax overpayment or a tax refund,
4. the lack of an obligation for a tax remitter to withhold tax, if it results from the circumstances indicated in letter a.

Both actions undertaken primarily to obtain a tax benefit and actions undertaken in the course of normal business activity where obtaining a tax benefit may be a side effect should be subject to reporting. Such a broad approach to reporting tax benefits aims to build trust and transparency in relations with the revenue administration; furthermore, it ensures that an entity participating in the Cooperative Compliance Programme analyses actions undertaken in the course of normal business activity in terms of their tax consequences.

In order to enable real-time cooperation, the taxpayer should report, as soon as possible, the intention to undertake actions that may result in obtaining a tax benefit. Therefore, the optimal solution would be to report both the tax benefit and doubts regarding application at the stage of planning specific actions, or even during the phase of considering the possibility of undertaking actions. Detailed arrangements in this regard may be further specified in the cooperation agreement.

For each taxpayer, after conducting a Preliminary Audit concluded with a positive opinion, a draft individual supervision plan (ISP) will be prepared, which will be provided to the taxpayer for their review prior to signing the cooperation agreement.

The individual supervision plan will contain a set of supervisory activities planned with respect to the taxpayer over a specific timeframe, the objective of which is to verify the correctness of fulfilling the obligations resulting from the agreement. The ISP specifies the frequency and type of planned supervisory activities and determines the possible ad hoc supervisory activities to be applied. The frequency and scope of the planned supervisory activities will depend on the assessment of the risk level determined on the basis of information obtained during the tax audit and ongoing cooperation within the framework of the agreement. The ISP will determine the response to tax risk, which should be adequate to its materiality. The ISP is an element of the taxpayer's profile, which constitutes a set of information about the taxpayer and the risks identified within their organisation, their assessment, and the manner of managing these risks by the NRA.

The individual supervision plan will depend on the assessment of the risk level; therefore, the duration of the plan will be flexible – the higher the risk level, the shorter the period covered by the plan. The anticipated periods for which the plan will be prepared range from one to four years.

With regard to some reporting obligations, the frequency of their fulfilment will depend on the level of effectiveness and adequacy of the Internal Tax Control Framework, i.e. on the overall assessment of the risk level – the lower the risk, the less frequent the fulfilment of these obligations resulting from the ISP.

The ISP will regulate the frequency of providing information:

1. in the form of SAF-T (JPK) files – schemas: KR, FA, MAG, WB,
2. on implemented or planned material changes regarding the ITCF,
3. on material financial, accounting, and legal events having or potentially having an impact on the functioning of the enterprise,
4. concerning the assessment of the correctness of the fulfilment of tax obligations or the functioning of the Internal Tax Control Framework, obtained as a result of internal controls and audits, as well as external audits commissioned by the taxpayer, including an independent audit of the tax function, as well as information on remedial actions taken,
5. regarding potentially contentious issues in high and low-risk areas; this will be regulated by defining a correspondingly low or high materiality threshold, which will be indicated in the periodic individual supervision plan.

In the case of a monitoring audit planned at the premises or branches of the taxpayer, the periodic individual supervision plan should contain not only its scope and implementation date, but also a preliminary audit plan and a preliminary schedule of audit activities agreed upon with the taxpayer.

The frequency and form of supervision regarding the planned monitoring audit will depend not only on the overall risk level – but also on specific high or low-risk areas.

A monitoring audit at the taxpayer's premises may be conducted ad hoc:

1. in the event of a material change regarding the ITCF, or
2. due to the need to clarify doubts regarding the correctness of the fulfilment of tax obligations, or
3. in connection with an application to conclude a tax agreement.

A monitoring audit without the taxpayer's participation will be conducted on the basis of information and documents provided by the taxpayer, those in the possession of the NRA, as well as publicly available information. These activities will be continuous in nature.

The outcome of these activities will manifest as a change in the risk assessment in the event of identifying irregularities (increased risk) or in their absence (decreased risk) – which, in turn, will influence the frequency of applying other forms of supervision.

The plan is flexible in nature, as it may be subject to modification when justified by:

1. a change in the risk assessment or the emergence of a new risk,
2. a change in the risk response as a result of an ad hoc supervisory activity. If the supervisory measure applied ad hoc does not change the risk assessment, but the application of a subsequently planned measure is no longer purposeful, or it is necessary to change the scope of the supervisory activity, e.g. replacing a monitoring audit without the taxpayer's participation with an audit at the taxpayer's premises.

Changing the supervision plan instead of increasing ad hoc activities allows for establishing a new scope and form of supervisory activities and a schedule for their implementation, which will enable the taxpayer to participate in the planning process. The current ISP will always be made available to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer will be informed each time about any changes to the ISP and the reasons for their introduction.

One of the fundamental principles of the Programme is an "agreement to disagree". Participation in the Programme does not exclude the possibility of entering into a dispute with the revenue administration. In the event of divergent positions regarding a given tax issue, both parties to the cooperation agreement should strive to resolve the dispute before an administrative court as quickly as possible. In the event of failure to conclude a tax agreement within the scope defined in the provision of Article 20zb of the Tax Ordinance Act, the taxpayer may request the issuance of, inter alia, an individual tax ruling, a clearance opinion, and other instruments provided for in tax law provisions. If the Director of the National Revenue Information System (KIS) issues a ruling which is also inconsistent with the taxpayer's position, the dispute may be subject to a court decision.

According to the explanatory memorandum to Art. 20z of the Tax Ordinance Act, the termination of the agreement entails the possibility of terminating the tax agreements concluded after its signing, but only those whose functioning after the termination of the agreement would be no longer purposeful, e.g. agreements concerning the Internal Tax Control Framework. A departure from this principle and the termination of tax agreements with the taxpayer regarding the interpretation of tax provisions could result in the risk of agreements being terminated also by other entities covered by the Programme, because in such a situation the agreements would provide less legal protection than tax rulings. Consequently, the fundamental benefit of participating in the Programme, which is the guarantee of the application of the law, would not be realised.

An independent auditor of the tax function should meet the statutory requirements. Any other potential requirements depend on the Internal Tax Control Framework implemented by a given taxpayer, e.g. regarding the capacity, professional experience, technical and professional abilities, economic standing, as well as the periodic rotation of the independent auditor of the tax function and the composition of the team supporting the performance of the independent audit of the tax function (IATF) by this auditor.

It should be emphasised that the IATF is carried out within the fourth line of defence against tax irregularities. Its objective is to provide the taxpayer with assurance that they are properly fulfilling their tax obligations. Imposing appropriate requirements in this regard on the service provider aims to ensure the highest possible quality of the conducted audit and, at the same time, demonstrates the maturity level of the Internal Tax Control Framework implemented by the taxpayer.

Requirements similar to those applied to the independent auditor should also apply to other elements of the external tax control mechanisms utilised by the taxpayer within the fourth line of defence, such as tax advisory services.