Publication date: October 23, 2025
Recently, administrative courts have been considering the possibility of imposing VAT obligations on individuals and companies providing services via the SaaS model. This article provides an analysis of the nature of the SaaS model, its advantages and disadvantages, the legal obligations associated with it for both users and service providers and the latest administrative court case law related to this model.
THE ESSENCE OF THE SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE MODEL:
The SaaS (Software as a Service) model involves the service provider providing services via a cloud computing platform. The idea is for the service provider to fully control access to such a platform, while also allowing remote interaction and editing of the platform, and for platform editing to occur almost instantly for users (so-called merchants). The principle of operation (similar to the general principles of cloud computing) is to grant the service provider exclusive access to the server and allow users to use it without having to install applications, software, download updates, etc. Typically, customers using such platforms pay a fixed fee, called a subscription, for a given period of time, which is a fixed expense. By paying a subscription, users gain access to the full set of tools they need to receive the benefits of the service provided in this model without having to purchase a license, install special software, etc. In short, it is a ready-to-use platform after paying the agreed-upon subscription fee, as it is created and made available based on the principles of cloud computing.
This model has its pros and cons. Among the advantages of this service model is increased copyright protection, as the server host has full control over who shares the software. Another benefit of this model is the ability to immediately implement software changes and updates, as well as their equally rapid implementation for users without the need for lengthy installation processes and software compatibility (reconciliation) with these changes. Furthermore, through the intermediary of cloud computing, virtually anyone in the world, from anywhere in the world, can use it – universal access. From the user’s perspective, another advantage of this solution is the lack of the need to purchase appropriate hardware to use such services or hire a new person for such tasks, as well as immediate access without wasting time on the extensions associated with the previously mentioned installation process.
However, there are also several drawbacks to this solution. Examples include the need for internet access, companies’ compliance with data protection and compliance regulations , the inability to customize the service to individual beneficiaries, and difficulties with later transferring the platform to another service provider.
Examples of using this model in everyday life include Microsoft Outlook, Google Drive, Shopify , Discord and Gmail .
SAAS MODEL IN THE COPYRIGHT ASPECT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PROTECTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS:
From copyright protection perspective, this service provision concept undoubtedly involves a computer program, understood as a set of instructions written in a given programming language and intended for execution by a computer. In the Polish copyright system, computer programs are specifically protected under Chapter 7 – “Special Provisions Regarding Computer Programs” of the Copyright and Related Rights Act. These provisions specify activities related to computer programs that require the creator’s consent, as well as exemptions from the requirement to obtain such consent. It should be noted, however, that these provisions do not apply to the SaaS model . The creator must always provide access to the service (even if consent is not required in a given situation), which constitutes consent to its use. After all, the provider’s consent to use the platform for a subscription fee must be part of the agreement, and even a condition of its execution (making the platform available to the beneficiary).
SAAS MODEL IN THE FRAMEWORK OF TAX LAW AND TAX LIABILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH GOODS AND SERVICES TAX – LEGAL FRAMEWORK:
A potential taxpayer providing services using the SaaS model could face a taxation issue in this situation. To gain some insight into this area, it should be noted that Article 7a of the Value Added Tax Act (resulting from the implementation into the Polish legal system of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax) and Article 5b of Implementing Regulation 282/2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax may be related to this type of activity. Article 7a of the Polish Act regulates the activity of “facilitating” (a concept within the meaning of Article 5b of Regulation 282/2011) the delivery of goods, within the meaning of Article 7 of the Act, via an “electronic interface”. Therefore, the key concepts in this case are “delivery“, “facilitation“, and “electronic interface“.
Under Article 7 of the Value Added Tax Act, delivery should be understood as a transfer of the right to dispose of an item as an owner. The remainder of the provision includes activities that extend the meaning of “delivery”. Every delivery of goods is subject to taxation under Article 5 of the Act.
Next, we need to decipher the concept of “facilitation”. The key element in analyzing this concept will be Article 5b of Implementing Regulation 282/2011. Under this EU law, this refers to any activity via an electronic interface intended to facilitate contact between the buyer and the supplier of goods and to effect their delivery. The provision also includes exclusions for certain activities from the scope of this legal definition. These exclusions indicate that “intermediation” is not considered facilitation within the meaning of the regulation if the taxpayer does not specify any delivery terms, is not involved in approving the payment for the delivery of goods to the buyer, and is not involved in the ordering and delivery process (directly or indirectly).
The term “electronic interface” should be understood as any software used to establish contact between a buyer and a seller (supplier). Furthermore, as indicated in the literature, this term should be interpreted broadly, and the list of examples of this expression is merely exemplary.
Therefore, it should be considered that the provision of services using the SaaS model is subject to value added tax. This constitutes facilitation within the meaning of the regulation (of course, in the absence of any exclusionary circumstances contained in the above-mentioned provisions) via an electronic interface. In the SaaS model, this can be used, for example, to enable the opening of an online store (the Shopify platform is an ideal model for this mode of operation ).
PROVIDING SERVICES IN THE SAAS MODEL AND TAXATION WITH GOODS AND SERVICES TAX IN THE LIGHT OF THE LATEST CASE LAW:
The provision of services in the Software as a Service model was the subject of recent considerations of the Provincial Administrative Court in Szczecin (ref. ISA/ Sz 269/22).
Briefly summarizing the facts, a joint-stock company submitted an application to the Director of the National Tax Information Office for an individual interpretation of a future event regarding its inability to be recognized as a VAT payer within the meaning of Article 7a, Sections 1-2 of the Value Added Tax Act. The company argued that it engaged in the aforementioned activity characteristic of providing services in a SaaS model, namely providing a platform to potential online store owners (this is one of the main types of activity in the SaaS model, which is why the provisions mentioned above were referred to as the “VAT-e-commerce package” or VAT-SaaS). However, online store owners and buyers of their products act in their own name and on their own account. The platform, constructed by the company, was solely intended to enable merchants to present their products to potential buyers, enable buyers to purchase goods, and enable payment for the goods. Furthermore, the store owners were to operate under their own new internet domain, either created specifically for the store or already used at an earlier stage of their business. Each party to sales agreements concluded via the electronic interface was to act on its own account and in its own name, and in accordance with the internal regulations of the given online store. Therefore, the company was not intended to handle any operational or financial aspects of the merchants’ businesses. The only additional activity not mentioned above was purely educational in nature, as the interface operator posted educational and training materials.
The conclusion from the facts of the case is that the company argued that it does not manage stores created by merchants and that they act on their own behalf, while the platform operator itself only facilitates the creation of specific e-commerce hubs. According to the applicant, it should not be considered a VAT payer for this activity due to a functional interpretation of EU regulations, as the intention of the EU and national legislature was not to tax e-commerce software providers, but only the operators of the electronic interface enabling the merchant to establish contact with the purchaser of their product, resulting in the delivery of goods.
The Director of the National Tax Information Service (KIS) disagreed with the applicant’s position and noted that its interpretation of these provisions was incorrect and inconsistent with applicable law, a decision the company appealed to the Provincial Administrative Court in Szczecin. According to the authority, the case at hand involved a transfer of the obligation to settle value added tax (VAT) to the entity providing the electronic interface, within the meaning of Article 7a of the Value Added Tax Act. Furthermore, the Director of the KIS noted that the legal fiction established by this provision applies to the applicant, regardless of the alleged circumstances regarding internal store regulations and sales between merchants and buyers, which in no way involve the company or its involvement in this venture. The company reiterated that its role is solely to provide appropriate IT support for the merchants’ business operations and that it does not directly or indirectly participate in the trade between the supplier and the final purchaser of the product. However, the complainant’s main argument was that the interface itself does not enable contact between the buyer and the merchant , as the merchant must first set up and design a store on the platform before any contact between them and the conclusion of a purchase and sale agreement can even be considered. In response to the complaint, the Director of the National Tax Information (KIS) requested its dismissal.
The Regional Administrative Court in Szczecin shared the contested position of the authority, noting that “It is impossible to (…) agree with the complainant’s position that the nature of its business activity – the supply of software and server space – excludes it from being considered an operator of an electronic interface facilitating the delivery of goods. On the contrary, the nature of its activity consisting in the implementation and development of online stores determines the necessity of recognizing it as an operator of an electronic interface. (…) It is therefore impossible to accept the company’s position that it does not participate in the process of ordering goods sold via an electronic interface.” Further on in the legal justification for dismissing the complaint’s allegations, one can read a rather important point that the Regional Administrative Court included therein, namely that the provisions of Article 7a of the Value Added Tax Act do not only cover “giants” of the SaaS model, such as Amazon, but also smaller entities that even indirectly facilitate the exchange of goods by simply providing an electronic interface, and that not only direct but also indirect facilitation should always be taken into account (which it considered the provision of a tool for creating an online store to be).
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the company appealed the Supreme Administrative Court’s ruling in cassation, but it appears the Supreme Administrative Court supported the Director of the National Tax Information System’s position and upheld the Provincial Administrative Court’s ruling. Unfortunately, we can only conclude this from the published ruling, as the justification is not included in the ruling’s publication in the Supreme Administrative Court’s Rulings Database (reference number I FSK 1539/22). This is likely due to the fact that the ruling is very recent – it was issued on October 1, 2025.