The amendments to the Tax Ordinance introduced in 2005 and 2009 in the scope of securing the performance of a tax obligation were of a systemic nature. If the legislator allows for the possibility of providing security in the form of a bank or insurance guarantee, a bank suretyship or a bill of exchange with a bank surety, an additional entity appears next to the tax debtor, which guarantees the performance of someone else’s tax obligation with all its assets. The manner in which the legal position of the guarantee debtor is shaped is an expression of a very far-reaching conservatism on the part of the legislator. Therefore, on the one hand, the law allows for the possibility of using certain civil law contracts to secure a public law obligation, but on the other hand, it includes guarantors and sureties in the category of third parties. Consequently, the legal position of the guarantor and surety is determined primarily by the provisions on third-party liability and not by the guarantee or surety agreement, as it might appear at first glance.

Issues of directors' personal liability for limited liability companies tax debts are related to the need to maintain an appropriate relationship between enforcement of obligations under the law and respect for the rights of subjects of these obligations. On the one hand, in the case of limited liability companies, we are faced with the problem of guaranteeing effective protection to the company's creditors, including public law creditors, and, on the other hand, with the need to maintain acceptable standards for imposing liability for the company's obligations as a separate legal entity. The conflict of these values becomes apparent with particular intensity in the situation of actual influence on the functioning of the company by persons who are not appointed as directors or act as a director without due authority. Analysis of Polish, German and Austrian law allows the conclusion that the scope of liability of de facto directors is sometimes shaped differently and the sources of such liability are different. The purpose of this article is to indicate the need for a statutory regulation of the legal position of a de facto director.

The article concerns the issue of joint and several liability under tax law. Although the legislator uses a uniform term of joint and several liability, two distinct categories of joint and several liability should be distinguished, i.e. joint and several liability of tax obligations and joint and several liability of guarantee function. Joint and several liability of guarantee function applies in cases of liability for someone else's debt. The liability of the secondary liable person is ancillary to the principal obligation. Such a relationship does not exist in the case of joint and several liability of tax obligations. It should also be noted that in the case of joint and several liability of guarantee function, there is a clear gradation of tax obligations. The indicated structural features of joint and several liability of guarantee function directly affect the scope of necessary modifications when applying the provisions of the Civil Code on joint and several liabilities under tax law. The objective of the article is to highlight the differences between joint and several liability of tax obligations and joint and several liability of guarantee function and to define the theoretical and practical consequences of this division.

Partnerships established on the basis of foreign legal systems may conduct business activities in Poland. This may result in tax arrears. The subject of this article is the analysis of the admissibility of applying Art. 115 § 1 of the Tax Ordinance to the partners of those partnerships. In the author's opinion, this provision does not constitute grounds for holding a partner of a foreign partnership liable for its tax arrears.