R&D relief, EU grants and the Polish Investment Zone (PIZ): a guide to combining support

Using preferences in parallel and the prohibition of double funding

Yes, the R&D relief, EU grants and the tax exemption under the Polish Investment Zone can be combined. There is one key condition: the same cost amount cannot be settled twice as the basis for different preferences. This is what the prohibition of double funding, often referred to as double dipping, means in practice. It is not a ban on using several forms of support, but a ban on “counting the same zloty” in several calculations at once.

Each of these instruments works differently. The R&D relief allows an additional deduction from the tax base of costs incurred on research and development activity. An EU or national grant usually finances or reimburses specific expenses in a project. The Polish Investment Zone, in turn, provides an income tax exemption for income earned from the activity specified in the support decision, up to the available public aid limit.

This is why these instruments can operate side by side. The problem only arises when one specific cost is meant to increase the grant amount, reduce the tax base under the R&D relief and affect the calculation of exempt income in the PIZ at the same time.

In the CIT Act, this principle is visible above all in two provisions. Art. 18d(5) of the CIT Act states that qualifying costs may be deducted if they have not been reimbursed to the taxpayer in any form or deducted from the income tax base. The same restriction appears in Art. 26e(5) of the PIT Act. Art. 18d(6) of the CIT Act adds a special rule for taxpayers using a zone exemption or a support decision: only those qualifying costs that are not taken into account when calculating tax-exempt income may be deducted under the R&D relief. For PIT taxpayers, Art. 26e(6) of the PIT Act performs the same function.

It is also worth getting the terminology right. An “eligible cost” in a grant project is not the same as a “qualifying cost” under the R&D relief. The first term follows from the call rules, the funding agreement and the programme rules. The second follows from the CIT Act or the PIT Act. The same expense may be eligible in a grant project but not meet the conditions of the R&D relief. The reverse is also possible: a cost meets the tax conditions but is not eligible under a given grant programme.

From the public aid perspective, one more distinction is important. The standard R&D relief is, as a rule, not public aid. The exceptions concern, among others, selected preferences for research and development centres and the cash refund of the unused relief, which constitutes de minimis aid. In practice, this means that when a grant is combined with the R&D relief in the usual way, the biggest risk is usually not exceeding the public aid limit itself, but the tax prohibition on deducting a cost that has already been reimbursed to the taxpayer.

EU grants and qualifying costs in the R&D relief: what can be safely deducted?

If a cost has been covered by a grant, that part of the cost should not be deducted under the R&D relief. If the grant financed only part of the expense, the part financed from the company’s own funds may be included in the relief, provided it meets the other conditions of the relief. This is the basic rule arising from Art. 18d(5) of the CIT Act and Art. 26e(5) of the PIT Act.

Example: a company incurred PLN 1 million in salary costs for its R&D team. The project was co-financed at 60%, and the company covered the remaining 40% itself. The full PLN 1 million should not be taken into the R&D relief calculation. The starting point is the company’s own share, i.e. PLN 400,000. Only then is the appropriate deduction limit for the given cost category applied to that amount.

This approach is confirmed by interpretative practice. In an individual interpretation of 2 March 2026, 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.6.2026.2.ZK, concerning equipment partly financed with funds from the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARiMR), the Director of National Tax Information (KIS) accepted the deduction under the R&D relief of only the part of the expense that was not covered by the co-financing.

It may also happen that a company first deducts a cost under the R&D relief and only later receives a grant or reimbursement. In such a situation, it is not always necessary to go back to the historical year and correct the original relief settlement. Art. 18d(5a) of the CIT Act requires the tax base to be increased or the loss to be reduced in the return for the year in which the cost was reimbursed. An analogous rule applies in PIT under Art. 26e(5a).

The practical conclusion is simple: a grant does not cancel the right to the R&D relief, but it requires precise separation of costs. The company should know what part of the expense was covered by the grant, what part was actually incurred from its own funds, and what part of that own amount meets the conditions of an R&D qualifying cost.

How to settle depreciation of fixed assets financed with a grant?

For fixed assets and intangible assets used in R&D, the purchase invoice itself is generally not deducted. What goes into the R&D relief are depreciation write-offs, i.e. the part of the value of the fixed asset or intangible asset that is settled for tax purposes in a given year. For ordinary taxpayers, passenger cars, structures, buildings and premises constituting separate property are excluded from qualifying costs. Different rules may apply to taxpayers with research and development centre status.

For assets financed with a grant, several provisions must be combined. Art. 16(1)(48) of the CIT Act excludes from tax-deductible costs the part of depreciation write-offs corresponding to expenses reimbursed to the taxpayer. In PIT, an analogous mechanism follows from Art. 23(1)(45) of the PIT Act. At the same time, Art. 18d(3k) of the CIT Act and Art. 26e(3k) of the PIT Act provide that these exclusions do not apply to qualifying costs constituting depreciation write-offs.

This does not mean, however, that the grant-funded part of depreciation can automatically be deducted under the R&D relief. The general rule still applies that a cost reimbursed to the taxpayer should not be deducted under the relief. Therefore, the safest approach is to separate the part financed by the grant from the company’s own part and to take into account the actual use of the asset in R&D activity.

Example: a company bought a device for PLN 2 million, half of which was financed by a grant. The annual depreciation write-off is PLN 200,000. The device is used for R&D 70% of the time. A cautious calculation of the qualifying cost looks like this: PLN 200,000 × 50% own share × 70% use in R&D = PLN 70,000. Only then is the appropriate deduction limit applied to that amount.

For larger amounts or more complex financing, it is worth considering applying for an individual interpretation. This part of the relief is more technical than salary or materials costs, because it requires simultaneously taking into account the depreciation rules, costs reimbursed to the taxpayer, the conditions of the R&D relief and the way the fixed asset is actually used.

If the grant is received only after depreciation has started, the timing of receipt of the funds is important. In case law concerning general tax-deductible costs, it is accepted that the effects of reimbursement of depreciation write-offs are, as a rule, settled in the period in which the taxpayer actually received the funds, rather than by automatically going back to earlier periods. This is confirmed, among others, by the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 December 2015, II FPS 4/15, and the more recent judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 April 2026, II FSK 866/23. In the R&D relief itself, a similar effect follows directly from Art. 18d(5a) of the CIT Act and Art. 26e(5a) of the PIT Act.

The R&D relief and a support decision under the Polish Investment Zone

A PIZ support decision in itself does not exclude the R&D relief. The CIT Act expressly provides for a situation in which a taxpayer simultaneously uses a zone or PIZ exemption and the R&D relief. The condition is that costs taken into account in calculating exempt income are not settled under the R&D relief.

For CIT taxpayers, this follows from Art. 18d(6) of the CIT Act. The provision refers to the exemptions under Art. 17(1)(34) and (34a) of the CIT Act, i.e. special economic zones and PIZ support decisions. For PIT taxpayers, Art. 26e(6) of the PIT Act has an analogous meaning, in conjunction with the exemptions under Art. 21(1)(63a) and (63b) of the PIT Act.

In practice, therefore, the problem is not simply having a support decision. It must be checked whether the company is actually already using the exemption and whether a specific R&D cost has been taken into account in calculating exempt income. If the cost relates to taxable activity or does not affect the calculation of exempt income, it can still be analysed for the R&D relief. If, however, the same cost has already been included in the calculation of exempt income under the PIZ, deducting it again under the R&D relief would be incorrect.

This approach is confirmed by individual interpretations. In the interpretation of 14 May 2026, 0114-KDIP2-1.4010.94.2026.2.JF, the Director of KIS agreed that a taxpayer may use the R&D relief before starting to use the exemption, and then combine the R&D relief with the exemption, provided that it settles under the relief costs not taken into account in exempt income. A similar approach can be seen in earlier interpretations, including 0114-KDIP2-1.4010.209.2022.3.MW and 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.302.2023.1.JKU.

Case law concerning special economic zones is also worth using. In its judgment of 9 September 2021, II FSK 724/21, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that the law does not preclude a taxpayer carrying out zone activity from using the R&D relief, provided that the same costs are not settled twice. The earlier stage of this case was the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów of 18 February 2021, I SA/Rz 32/21. These judgments concern SEZs, not PIZ support decisions directly, but they are important because Art. 18d(6) covers both exemption regimes.

Settling R&D costs from exempt activity and taxable activity

The most important thing is a proper separation of costs. The mere fact that a project is located at a site covered by a support decision does not yet determine that the cost is excluded from the R&D relief. What matters is whether the cost was taken into account in calculating exempt income.

In practice, three typical situations can be distinguished. First: the R&D team works on a product, technology or process used exclusively in taxable activity. In such a case, the support decision should not in itself block the R&D relief. Second: the R&D team works directly for the activity covered by the exemption, and the costs are included in the calculation of exempt income. In that case, Art. 18d(6) of the CIT Act or Art. 26e(6) of the PIT Act blocks their deduction a second time. Third: the project is mixed and serves both taxable and exempt activity. In that case, a rational, documented allocation key is needed.

In none of these situations is a general statement that the cost “does not relate to exempt activity” sufficient. The company should have records that make it possible to trace from the source document, e.g. an invoice, a payroll or a depreciation document, to a specific project, employee, fixed asset, usage proportion and the final amount reported under the R&D relief.

A good way of thinking about this is two parallel layers: the records of R&D qualifying costs and the calculation of exempt income under the PIZ. If these layers are kept separate, it is easier for the company to show that it is not settling the same amount twice. If they are mixed, the risk of a dispute with the authority increases.

How to safely plan the mix of innovation funding in a company?

It is best to plan the split of funding already at the project budget stage, not only at the annual CIT or PIT settlement. This way, the same invoice, salary or depreciation write-off does not accidentally end up in several calculations at once.

Below are a few typical situations:

• An R&D project is partly financed by a grant: the company incurs PLN 1 million in materials costs, of which PLN 600,000 is reimbursed. At most PLN 400,000 of own costs may be included in the R&D relief, provided they meet the definition of qualifying costs.
• A company buys a device for its R&D laboratory and finances half of it with a grant. What counts under the R&D relief are depreciation write-offs, not the capital expenditure itself, taking into account the share of own financing and the actual use of the device in R&D.
• A company has a PIZ support decision but carries out R&D projects unrelated to its exempt activity. Their costs may be included in the relief if they are not taken into account in calculating exempt income.
• R&D work concerns production covered by the PIZ exemption, and the costs affect exempt income. The same costs should not be settled under the R&D relief, unless the part relating to taxable activity can be reliably separated.

At a glance:

The safest funding mix is not “putting costs everywhere”, but a cost map. For each significant expense, it should show: the source of funding, grant eligibility, eligibility for the R&D relief, the link to PIZ exempt activity, the usage proportion and the final deduction amount.

Non-tax documents must also be remembered. For grants, the call rules, the funding agreement, the catalogue of eligible costs and the project durability rules must be checked. For the PIZ, the content of the support decision, the scope of activity covered by the decision, the location of the investment, the moment the exemption started to be used and the extent to which the public aid limit has been used must be checked. The standard R&D relief is, as a rule, not public aid, but the restrictions under Art. 18d(5) and (6) of the CIT Act and Art. 26e(5) and (6) of the PIT Act still apply. Where de minimis aid or regional investment aid is involved, limits and aid cumulation rules must also be monitored.

See also: the R&D relief can be combined not only with grants and the PIZ. If a company commercialises the results of R&D work in the form of intellectual property rights, it is worth checking the combination of the R&D relief with the IP Box relief. Companies planning investments in digitalisation and automation may also look at the article on what the tax on excess profits from digitalisation has in common with the R&D relief.

How ALTO can help: before a company starts settling costs in several places at once, it is worth checking whether the split between the grant, the R&D relief and the PIZ is consistent and documented. ALTO helps design the project cost map, check which expenses can safely be included in the R&D relief and which have already been “consumed” by the grant or the PIZ exemption, and prepare records that will stand up to questions from the tax office. See how we can help your company.

FAQ: Frequently asked questions about combining the R&D relief with grants and the PIZ

Can the R&D relief be combined with an EU grant?

Yes, but only for the part of the cost that was not covered by the grant or reimbursed to the taxpayer in another form. The same amount cannot be both financed by a grant and deducted under the R&D relief.

Can a company with a PIZ support decision use the R&D relief?

Yes. In CIT, this is allowed by Art. 18d(6) of the CIT Act, and in PIT by Art. 26e(6) of the PIT Act. The condition is that qualifying costs cannot be taken into account in calculating tax-exempt income.

What is double funding, or double dipping?

It is a situation in which the same cost amount is used more than once, e.g. as an expense covered by a grant, an element of the PIZ exempt income calculation and a qualifying cost deducted under the R&D relief. Tax law does not allow such double settlement.

How to settle depreciation of a machine partly financed by a grant?

The safest approach is to include in the relief only the part of the depreciation write-off corresponding to own financing and the actual use of the machine in R&D. Neither the entire write-off nor the purchase expense itself is deducted if the machine is a fixed asset.

What if we receive the grant after deducting the cost under the R&D relief?

The previously deducted amount must be settled in the return for the year in which the company received the reimbursement: by increasing the tax base or reducing the loss. This follows from Art. 18d(5a) of the CIT Act and Art. 26e(5a) of the PIT Act.

Sources

• Art. 18d(1), (3), (3k), (5), (5a), (6), (7) and (8) of the CIT Act; correspondingly Art. 26e of the PIT Act.
• Art. 16(1)(48) and Art. 17(1)(34) and (34a) of the CIT Act; correspondingly Art. 23(1)(45) and Art. 21(1)(63a) and (63b) of the PIT Act.
• Act of 10 May 2018 on supporting new investments, Journal of Laws 2025, item 469.
• Ministry of Finance, “Investor’s tax guide. Reliefs and incentives”, 2026.
• Individual interpretation of the Director of KIS of 2 March 2026, 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.6.2026.2.ZK.
• Individual interpretation of the Director of KIS of 14 May 2026, 0114-KDIP2-1.4010.94.2026.2.JF.
• Individual interpretations of the Director of KIS: 0114-KDIP2-1.4010.209.2022.3.MW and 0111-KDIB1-3.4010.302.2023.1.JKU.
• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 9 September 2021, II FSK 724/21.
• Judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Rzeszów of 18 February 2021, I SA/Rz 32/21.
• Resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of 14 December 2015, II FPS 4/15.
• Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 April 2026, II FSK 866/23.

Article updated: September 2026.