The treasury is not knocking by chance
Interest in doctors’ accounts rose after the media‑publicised case of the Southern Hospital. One doctor was supposed to earn PLN 1.6 million there in a year, partly by inflating invoices. “Gazeta Wyborcza” therefore checked how the National Tax Administration (KAS) monitors private practices and doctors working on B2B contracts.
The scale turned out to be significant. Over a year and a half, KAS took action against 23,000 medical entities. Not every verification meant an immediate formal audit. The tax administration treats doctors running a business the same as other entrepreneurs; when a justified suspicion of tax law violations arises, officials begin investigative procedures.
Result? Nearly PLN 109 million of disputed accounts. The average amount of irregularity was about PLN 4.7 thousand. This shows that risk does not only concern spectacular invoices amounting to hundreds of thousands of zlotys. Sometimes the problem starts with a small mistake that repeats over subsequent months.
The audit starts where explanations end
When documents and explanations did not dispel doubts, KAS initiated a tax audit. 82 such proceedings were carried out.
Officials disputed accounts totaling over PLN 9.4 million in them.
The list of shortcomings leaves little room for chance. Auditors detected understated or incorrectly reported taxable bases, unpaid taxes and advances, declarations with formal deficiencies, missing required declarations, and delays in settling obligations. Each of these errors may look like a minor oversight. Together, however, they create a financial burden measured in millions.
Running a medical practice also means running a business. The patient sees the diagnosis, procedure, and bill. The treasury sees the taxable base, payment deadline, and the consistency of the declaration with the actually performed service.
One word on the invoice can change the tax
Aesthetic medicine particularly attracts the tax office. A recurring abuse is presenting procedures that improve appearance as medical services.
Procedures performed solely for aesthetic purposes are taxable. Exemptions cover services whose purpose is to protect or improve health. Therefore, the accounting should not be decided by the marketing name of the procedure or how it is presented to the client, but by its actual purpose.
It is here that the temptation to misclassify a service to change its tax consequences arises. The problem is that the tax office increasingly checks what really lies behind the description on the invoice.
