{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
The levy on foodstuffs commonly referred to as the sugar tax was introduced on 1 January 2021, together with a levy on prepackaged alcoholic beverages with a nominal volume of the drink not exceeding 300 ml. The rationale for the introduction of these levies was, of course, the concern of those in power for the health of Poles and the desire to reduce sales of the said goods or to influence a reduction in the proportion of specific ingredients in drinks. After more than a year of operation of the sugar tax, the question must be asked as to whether it has fulfilled its purpose.
Structure of the sugar tax
It should be recalled that the levy in question was imposed on beverages containing added sugars, sweeteners and caffeine or taurine. By beverage we mean a product in the form of a drink and a syrup, which is a foodstuff, included in the Polish Classification of Goods and Services in classes 10.32 and 10.89 and in Chapter 11, which contains at least one of the substances listed above.
The amount of sugar tax is:
- PLN 0.50 for a sugar content equal to or less than 5 g per 100 ml of beverage or for containing in any quantity at least one sweetener,
- PLN 0.05 for each gram of sugars exceeding 5 g in 100 ml of beverage.
Drinks containing added caffeine or taurine are subject to a charge of PLN 0.10 per litre of drink. Of course, within individual categories of goods there are exemptions or modifications. For example, dietary supplements are excluded from this levy, and indeed some beverages have been given special status, which has affected the amount of sugar tax paid by producers.
This levy is paid, among other things, by those supplying retail shops.
Proceeds to the state budget
According to the original assumptions, revenues from the sugar tax were to amount to PLN 250 million per month. According to the data made public by the Ministry of Finance, for the first 11 months, the revenues from this levy amounted to ca. PLN 1.4 billion. This is significantly less than assumed. Of course, this situation was influenced by the decrease in sales of certain beverages due to price increases. However, a significant role was also played by changes in the composition of products made by manufacturers by eliminating those ingredients which were covered by the levy.
Probably in some time there will be an analysis on the part of those in power as to how the levy works in practice and whether there is any way to further tighten it. Recently, there have been rumours of a draft amendment that would also impose a sugar tax on drinks sold exclusively through the e-commerce channel. Currently, there are tax interpretations that confirm that such beverages are outside the system of the levy in question.
Penalties
While analysing the functioning of the sugar tax, one should also mention the system of penalties which was created by those in power and which is supposed to force people to comply with regulations in this area. Specifically, it is a provision that if the sugar tax is not paid on time, an additional fee of 50% of the amount due will be charged. It is worth emphasising that the legislator is increasingly bold in applying this type of solutions, which also appear in the levies introduced in the regulations implementing the plastic directive. In practice, 50% interest is really a rarity, but will it always be so?
Obviously, there are no official data as to how many entities have paid fines and in what amount, but the provision in question means that if an entity is at least one day late with submitting its documentation and paying the sugar tax ( even through no fault of its own, but e.g. for objective reasons), it will automatically be charged with the fee in question. Moreover, the competent authority does not have any discretion in this respect and must impose a penalty of 50%, because this is what the law states.
Obviously, the functioning of this provision should be assessed very negatively, as 20-30% of the main fee would be a sufficient deterrent for potential latecomers or forgetful persons. It would be worthwhile for the legislator to consider at the next amendment whether it is worth relieving entrepreneurs in this respect.
{{filterContent.facetedTitle}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
Contact us
Follow us
