Post by joita97022 on Jan 8, 2024 9:36:06 GMT
For an amount below PLN and the other for an amount of PLN which does not include goods from Annex No. Annex is correct in terms of split payment settlements. The regulations do not prohibit such action. This method of settling transactions was also not mentioned in the Ministry of Finance's explanations with an indication that it was incorrect.
It seems that this course of action which is practical should not be questioned by the Phone Number List tax authorities. This is also confirmed by the issued tax interpretation No.KDIB. AZ of the Director of KIS of December which considers such behavior of the entrepreneur to be correct. Issuing invoices separately depending on the place of delivery.
The entrepreneur raised another problematic issue regarding the IMP in his application for a different tax interpretation. Namely he asked a question what if the delivery of scrap with loading in different places will be documented with separate invoices issued for each of these places. This will result in a situation.
It seems that this course of action which is practical should not be questioned by the Phone Number List tax authorities. This is also confirmed by the issued tax interpretation No.KDIB. AZ of the Director of KIS of December which considers such behavior of the entrepreneur to be correct. Issuing invoices separately depending on the place of delivery.
The entrepreneur raised another problematic issue regarding the IMP in his application for a different tax interpretation. Namely he asked a question what if the delivery of scrap with loading in different places will be documented with separate invoices issued for each of these places. This will result in a situation.