Banks are under pressure. Despite lengthy discussions with the finance minister about improving the current bank tax, it has now emerged that the government is instead planning to increase CIT for banks.
Indeed, the government plans to increase CIT for banks, albeit with a simultaneous reduction in the bank tax. While we are aware of the state's budgetary needs and understand the importance of goals such as defence and health. However, understand why only one industry should be burdened with an additional contribution. This is particularly perplexing given that this is the industry that pays the highest CIT every year; every fourth zloty from CIT comes from banks, and six of the ten largest CIT payers are banks. Furthermore, in addition to paying the highest taxes to the state budget – PLN 24 billion last year – banks service over 50% of the Treasury's borrowing needs. By purchasing the most Treasury bonds, our sector is crucial in helping the state to service its public debt. In fact, no other sector in the European Union buys bonds to the same extent as the Polish banking sector. This has led to an unprecedented situation in Europe, where the banking sector holds more debt securities, mainly Treasury bonds, than loans in its assets, making us an exceptionally stable partner for the state. And yet, we are being “rewarded” with additional taxation. Therefore, we fail to understand why this particular sector, which is such a stable partner for the state and already pays the highest taxes, is being burdened with what amounts to a solidarity levy. In countries such as France or Spain, additional tax burdens were indeed introduced for important social purposes, but they were implemented on a true ‘solidarity’ basis, involving other industries as well, not just the banking sector.
It is challenging to argue against this tax, particularly when the public hears that banks earned over PLN 23 billion in the first half of 2025 and that these profits increased by almost 20 per cent. This raises the question of what arguments can justify the position that this tax is inappropriate and excessive.
While the attention the banking sector receives from the public and journalists is appreciated, the data presents a different perspective. According to data from the Warsaw Stock Exchange, if we look at the commonly used economic indicator of profitability – return on assets – the banking sector ranks only 16th. Numerous sectors are far more profitable, including transport, logistics, retail chains, automotive, fuels, telecommunications, IT, debt trading, media, and e-commerce. This begs the question: why should these more profitable sectors, whose profits are rarely discussed but are significantly higher than those of the banking sector, not also contribute in solidarity to a levy intended for important social goals such as defence or health? Surely, representatives of these industries also consider these goals to be important.
Is there a dialogue between the sector and the government on this issue?
Yes, there is. With official public consultations on the project now underway, I hope this dialogue continues to be constructive. We will certainly continue to insist that the solidarity levy be distributed across various sectors in a truly solidary manner, and we will also raise the need to reform the bank tax. The ministry is fully aware that the bank tax is based on a flawed premise; indeed, both Minister Neneman and Minister Domański have recently stated on several occasions that they recognise its basis is inappropriate. What we are missing – and what we will certainly seek during our discussions – is a clear pathway towards fully absorbing the bank tax into an increased Corporate Income Tax (CIT), a move that would have to be made without jeopardising state budget revenues. Under the project’s current structure, by 2028 we will be left with an increased CIT and only a 20% reduction in the bank tax. While this could be seen as a first step in acknowledging the banking sector's concerns, we still do not see a clear plan for the bank tax's eventual, full absorption into the CIT. This is crucial because CIT is neutral regarding lending to the economy. In contrast, the bank tax, being based on assets, creates what in my opinion is an untenable situation for the state: the more a bank lends, the more tax it pays. This structure actively discourages banks from injecting more capital into the economy, despite them being the main providers of external financing, accounting for 87% of the total. Yet, we are expected to continue with this flawed and detrimental tax base, with no clear path for change outlined.
Interlocutor: Polish Bank Association
