800+ recipient in alternating custody loses single-parent tax settlement

A divorced mother who shares court-ordered alternating custody of three minor children with their fatherMF and collects the 800+ child benefit on themMF cannot settle personal income tax as a single parent for 2026 and later yearsMF, even though she otherwise meets the single-parent definition. The preference of article 6(4d) of the PIT act — tax computed at double the rate on half of income — is closed to her for as long as those facts and the law standMF.

The mother, divorced, with unlimited Polish tax liability and employment income taxed under the scale, has four children. The eldest, born in November 2005, is an adult under 25 who studies, works on a commission contract, holds a moderate-disability certificate and receives a care allowance (zasiłek pielęgnacyjny), and depends on her daily organisational, emotional and financial support while living away for study. The three younger children, born in June 2011, May 2014 and July 2017, live one week with each parent under a 2022 court orderMF that left parental authority with both parents; they are registered at her address, she organises their medical care and schooling, and by agreement with the father she collects the 800+ benefit on all threeMF.

The adult child's circumstances were not the problem. A child receiving a care allowance or a social pension falls within article 6(4c)(2), and the mother's sole factual care of that child — the father pays only 475 zł monthly maintenance and takes no part in upbringing, treatment or daily support — was not questioned. The preference fails on the three minors instead: article 6(4f) denies it where a parent raises a child jointly with the other parent in alternating custody and the 800+ benefit has been set for both parents under article 5(2a) of the 11 February 2016 child-support actMF. Because the mother both shares alternating custodyMF and collects the benefitMF, the negative condition is metMF. On that reading, where only one parent collects the benefit, the claim belongs to the parent who does not collect it.

Alternating custody alone is not the bar: joint alternating care and the article 5(2a) benefit must coincide. The article 6(8) exclusions did not arise here — neither the mother nor the children used flat-rate business tax, lump-sum tax, tonnage tax or shipyard relief — which leaves article 6(4f) as the basis for refusal; the preference needs only to arise at some point in the year rather than last all year.

Advisors should therefore verify who collects the 800+ benefit before claiming single-parent settlement for a client in alternating custody, and revisit the choice if the benefit arrangement changes. An individual ruling protects only a taxpayer whose facts match the application, under articles 14k-14nb of the Ordynacja podatkowa.

Legal basis: articles 6(4c)-6(4f) and 6(8) of the ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych and article 5(2a) of the ustawa o pomocy państwa w wychowywaniu dzieci.