Reclassification of a B2B contract by an inspector: How to file an appeal against a ZUS decision step by step?

A labour inspector’s decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship is not the same as a decision of the Social Insurance Institution concerning coverage by social insurance and the amount of contributions. These are two separate proceedings conducted under different statutes and by different authorities, although findings made by the inspector may constitute significant evidence in proceedings conducted by ZUS.

The provisions granting labour inspectors the power to issue decisions establishing the existence of an employment relationship have only just entered into force, so, as at July 2026, the practice of applying them is of course only taking shape. There is as yet no settled case law relating to the new regulations, which is why the statutory provisions and the existing case law of the Supreme Court concerning the conditions for the existence of an employment relationship retain fundamental significance.

This means that, in analysing the effects of the reform, one must rely above all on three pillars: the provisions of the new act on the National Labour Inspectorate (“PIP”), the Act on the Social Insurance System (“ZUS”), and the existing case law of the Supreme Court concerning the establishment of the existence of an employment relationship. The last of these will, paradoxically, be of the greatest significance in the coming years, because the reform did not change the definition of an employment relationship, only the authority and the procedure for establishing it. All the criteria developed by the Supreme Court for distinguishing genuine self-employment from a sham B2B contract remain applicable. Nor can one disregard the definition of business activity in the tax statutes, or the practice of the tax authorities and administrative courts in relation to B2B. All these sources form the ecosystem for operating safely in the sphere of B2B contracts.

The very title of this article, however, requires explanation, because it is very easy to create the mistaken impression that a PIP decision automatically leads to a decision being issued by ZUS. That is not the case. We are dealing with two separate sets of proceedings conducted by two different administrative authorities:

• The National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) makes findings concerning the existence of an employment relationship within the scope arising from the applicable provisions.
• ZUS independently assesses whether a given person is covered by compulsory social insurance and what the amount of the contributions due is.

A PIP decision therefore does not replace a ZUS decision and does not in itself yet give rise to contribution arrears, but for ZUS it constitutes extremely significant evidence. If ZUS obtains information about findings made by the National Labour Inspectorate, it may use the material gathered as evidence in the proceedings it conducts, but it still has an obligation to establish the facts independently and to carry out its own assessment of the evidence in accordance with the principle of free assessment of evidence. This is precisely why the PIP reform is of such great financial significance, even though it formally does not change the social insurance provisions.

From a PIP inspection report to a ZUS assessment decision – the financial domino mechanism

Findings made by a labour inspector, contained in the inspection report and in any administrative decision, do not in themselves give rise to contribution arrears. They may, however, be used by ZUS as evidence leading to the issuance of its own decision concerning coverage by social insurance and the amount of contributions. Only a ZUS decision may result in an obligation to pay outstanding contributions together with interest.

In public debate, the reform is most often presented as a change concerning labour law. From the perspective of a company’s management board, however, the greatest problem is not the obligation to conclude an employment contract, but the financial consequences that may emerge many months later.

This mechanism resembles a domino effect. A PIP inspection leads to the gathering of extensive evidence concerning the way the cooperation was carried out. The inspector then issues a decision concerning the existence of an employment relationship, and the information gathered may be used by ZUS in commencing its own proceedings.

One thing is worth emphasising very strongly: a PIP decision is not binding on ZUS in the formal sense. The Social Insurance Institution is obliged to establish the facts independently and to issue its own decision. This does not mean, however, that a PIP decision is without significance; in practice it will be one of the most important pieces of evidence in the entire proceedings.

Only a ZUS decision may lead to contribution arrears being established, interest being charged and further enforcement measures being initiated. From the point of view of an entrepreneur, and above all from the point of view of the management board and the finance director, it is precisely this moment that marks the beginning of real financial risk, which may materialise not on an individual scale, but across the entire group of contractors cooperating with the company.

It may be added in passing only that the financial risk will materialise not only in ZUS arrears, which are the subject of this article, but also in potential tax arrears, as described in more detail below.

ZUS proceedings on the redefinition of a B2B contract – how to protect the company against security over its assets?

An entrepreneur has the greatest influence on the outcome of the case not in court, but already at the stage of the investigative proceedings conducted by ZUS – that is where it is worth presenting material confirming the contractor’s genuine independence.

Most entrepreneurs focus on the final ZUS decision, whereas the most important stage of the proceedings takes place much earlier. That stage is the investigative proceedings.

In the course of the proceedings, ZUS is obliged to gather and consider all the evidence exhaustively. The authority may demand documents, question the parties and witnesses, and use other means of evidence provided for in the Code of Administrative Procedure, applied accordingly on the basis of the Act on the Social Insurance System. In practice the scope of the evidence is very broad, and it is precisely at this stage that the entrepreneur has the greatest opportunity to influence the outcome of the case.

From the perspective of managing the company’s liquidity, it is a mistake to treat the investigative proceedings as a formality and to postpone the arguments until the court stage. If coherent material confirming the contractor’s genuine independence is presented as early as this stage, there is a chance of concluding the case without an unfavourable decision being issued, which directly limits the financial risk for the company. Only after the investigative proceedings have been concluded does ZUS issue a decision concerning coverage by social insurance and the amount of contributions due.

A separate issue, crucial from the CFO’s perspective, is security over assets. The Social Insurance Institution may apply security for the performance of a liability only in the cases provided for in the provisions of the Act on the Social Insurance System and the Tax Ordinance applied accordingly. This requires demonstrating that the statutory conditions exist, in particular a justified concern that a future liability will not be performed. An entrepreneur’s aim should therefore be not so much to “avoid security” as to limit the risk of its being applied, through active participation in the proceedings and by demonstrating the company’s stable financial position.

Appealing against a ZUS decision step by step – deadlines and formal requirements in the fight for the company’s finances

An appeal against a ZUS decision is filed with the regional court, via the ZUS unit, within one month of service of the decision. Below is the full procedure step by step:

1. Check the date of service of the decision – the deadline for the appeal runs from that date.
2. Observe the one-month deadline – as a rule, the appeal must be filed within one month of service of the decision. Filing an appeal after the deadline may result in its rejection, unless the conditions provided for in the provisions that allow an appeal to be examined despite the deadline having been missed are met.
3. Direct the appeal to the competent regional court – the labour and social insurance division. An appeal against a ZUS decision is not filed with the President of ZUS or with any other administrative authority.
4. File the appeal via the ZUS unit that issued the decision – it is that unit which forwards it to the court.
5. Formulate specific pleas and indicate the provisions infringed, rather than merely stating in general terms that you disagree with the decision.
6. Present your own version of the facts together with the appropriate applications for evidence to be taken.
7. Assemble documents confirming how the cooperation was organised – in B2B cases the practice of the cooperation is more significant than the content of the signed contract itself.

Key pleas and arguments – how to defend a B2B contract effectively against redefinition as an employment relationship?

Entrepreneurs very often focus on showing that the parties deliberately chose the B2B model. From the court’s point of view, however, this is not a decisive argument – the objective circumstances in which the cooperation was carried out are far more significant. The strongest line of argument should demonstrate the entrepreneur’s genuine independence, in particular that the contractor:

• organised the manner of performing the services itself,
• bore the economic risk,
• invested its own funds,
• was responsible for the result of its work,
• could achieve either a profit or a loss,
• carried on business activity in its own name and at its own risk, and the fact that it also provided services to other entities may constitute an additional argument in favour of the entrepreneur’s independence, although it is not a condition for carrying on business activity,
• was not subject to the ongoing instructions of superiors and was not integrated into the enterprise’s organisational structure on the same terms as full-time employees.

The most common formal errors in appeals, which open the way for officials to collect contributions

The most common error is by no means missing the deadline for filing the appeal, although that of course has serious consequences. The most frequently encountered causes of an unfavourable outcome include:

• basing the entire line of argument solely on the content of the contract, even though ZUS and the courts examine above all the actual manner in which the cooperation was carried out,
• a passive stance at the stage of the investigative proceedings and postponing arguments until the court stage,
• omitting economic evidence – invoices, business correspondence, project documentation or evidence of bearing economic risk, which in B2B cases are often more significant than the contract itself.

A ZUS decision as a green light for a tax audit – how to stop losses escalating?

A ZUS decision does not automatically commence a tax audit, but in practice it may prompt the National Revenue Administration authorities to take an interest in the case.

It cannot be said that a ZUS decision automatically results in a tax audit being commenced, because the provisions do not provide for such a mechanism. In practice, a ZUS decision may prompt the National Revenue Administration authorities to take an interest in the case, but the provisions do not provide for the automatic commencement of a tax or customs and fiscal audit on that ground alone. Every set of tax proceedings requires a separate legal basis and its own findings of fact. If ZUS concludes that the cooperation was in reality an employment relationship, questions also arise as to the correctness of the tax settlements made by both parties.

The scope of the potential tax consequences will, however, depend on the specific cooperation model. In individual cases, issues may arise concerning PIT withholding agent obligations, the treatment of tax-deductible costs or VAT consequences. There is no single universal tax scenario for every B2B reclassification.

Effective risk management should not be limited to the appeal against the ZUS decision alone. For the management board and the finance director, it is far more important to prepare, in parallel, a strategy covering labour law, social insurance and taxes. Only such coordinated action makes it possible to limit the risk of multi-year disputes and of an accumulation of liabilities towards various state authorities. It is precisely this multidisciplinary nature of the problem that distinguishes an ordinary dispute with ZUS from a genuine legal and financial crisis within a business.

FAQ – Frequently asked questions

Does a PIP decision reclassifying a B2B contract automatically mean contribution arrears at ZUS?

No. A PIP decision and a ZUS decision are two separate sets of proceedings. A PIP decision is not binding on ZUS and does not replace its decision, but it constitutes significant evidence for ZUS in establishing whether an obligation to provide social insurance coverage has arisen.

How much time is there to appeal against a ZUS decision?

As a rule, the appeal must be filed within one month of service of the decision. Filing an appeal after the deadline may result in its rejection.

With which authority is an appeal against a ZUS decision filed?

The appeal is filed with the competent regional court, the labour and social insurance division, via the ZUS unit that issued the decision. It is not filed with the President of ZUS or with any other administrative authority.

Does a ZUS decision establishing an obligation to be covered by social insurance following a challenge to the B2B model lead to a tax audit?

Not automatically – the provisions do not provide for such a mechanism. In practice, however, a ZUS decision may prompt the National Revenue Administration authorities to take an interest in the case, especially as regards PIT withholding agent obligations and VAT settlements, with each set of tax proceedings requiring a separate legal basis and its own findings of fact.

When may ZUS establish security over a company’s assets in such proceedings?

Only where there is a real concern that the performance of a future liability will be hindered or impossible. Security is not applied automatically in every case – active participation in the investigative proceedings and demonstrating the company’s stable financial position limits that risk.

Sources

• Act of 11 March 2026 amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate and certain other acts (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 473) – sejm.gov.pl
• Act of 17 November 1964 – Code of Civil Procedure, consolidated text (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 468), Article 477(9) § 1 and § 3 – sejm.gov.pl
• Act of 13 October 1998 on the Social Insurance System, consolidated text (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 199), Article 83 – sejm.gov.pl
• Act of 26 June 1974 – Labour Code, consolidated text (Journal of Laws of 2025, item 277), Article 22 § 1 – sejm.gov.pl
• Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy, “Reform of the National Labour Inspectorate” – pl