Influencers, UGC and Taxes: Why an Invoice Alone Is Not Enough

Legal status as of 29 September 2026. The article is for information only; the settlement method must take into account the terms of the specific collaboration. Translated by the Blogger Bank editorial team from the Polish original.

A brand pays for a campaign, the creator publishes the material, and the accounting department receives an invoice. In a barter deal, instead of a bank transfer there is a product or a hotel stay. Still, the parties need to establish what they are actually settling for, who is responsible for tax and what evidence will remain after the campaign.

The marketing arrangements, the contract, the delivered material and the accounting settlement should all describe the same transaction.

First, establish what the creator is selling

A video prepared for a brand, a publication on the creator's own profile and the grant of rights to use the recording are not interchangeable concepts. In one collaboration the brand buys UGC material for its own channels. In another it pays mainly for advertising aimed at the influencer's audience. In a third it orders both.

For tax purposes what matters is the actual substance of the collaboration, not the mere label "creator" or "ambassador". An advertising service does not automatically become a copyright fee just because an original video was created while performing it.

It is therefore worth describing in the contract what is to be done and what the remuneration is for. If the parties price the preparation of the material, the publication and the rights to further use separately, the split should reflect the services actually provided. Merely breaking one campaign into several line items does not by itself determine that they are taxed separately.

Barter does not mean a tax-free collaboration

Suppose a creator receives equipment with an agreed value of PLN 4,000 and in return undertakes to prepare a review and publish it on their profile. The product is then remuneration for a service, not a gift just because the parcel was called one.

The absence of a transfer does not remove the income. The exchange must be included in the income tax settlement and, depending on the status of the parties and the type of transaction, also in VAT. In barter each party performs its own supply: the brand delivers the product and the creator provides a service. The same rates or exemptions do not have to apply to both.

Before handing over the product, agree on the value of both supplies, whether the stated amounts include VAT, what documents each party will issue and how any difference will be settled. The creator should also check what they will pay the tax from, since they will receive an item instead of money.

A genuine gift with no obligation to publish must be assessed differently. However, one must not conclude that every "PR package" is tax-neutral. The absence of barter does not yet mean the absence of tax obligations.

VAT: do not start by choosing the lower rate

For a typical advertising service taxable in Poland and performed by an active VAT payer, the 23% rate generally applies. This does not mean that every collaboration with a creator must be settled this way.

First you need to check whether the contractor acts as a VAT payer and whether they use an exemption. In 2026 the domestic subjective exemption limit is PLN 240,000 in sales; both the previous and the current year matter. When a business starts during the year, the limit is calculated proportionally. There are also statutory exclusions. The limit is not counted separately for each brand, platform or type of collaboration.

Services of creators remunerated with a fee for the transfer of, or grant of a licence to, copyright require a separate assessment. If the statutory conditions are met, the 8% rate may apply. It is not, however, an "influencer rate". A clause about copyright alone is not enough to settle an entire advertising service at the preferential rate.

That is why the VAT status and the way the price is set should be clarified before the budget is approved. "PLN 4,000 for the collaboration" does not yet answer the question of how much the brand will ultimately pay.

A creator without a business: the brand may also have obligations

The fact that the influencer does not run a business does not mean it is enough to transfer the agreed amount and leave the settlement to them. Under a mandate contract, a contract for specific work or copyright remuneration, the paying company may have PIT remitter obligations: calculating, withholding and paying the tax and preparing the relevant information returns.

The method of settlement depends on the actual legal basis of the payment and the contractor's situation. A statement "I settle all taxes myself" does not remove obligations that the law imposes on the brand or agency.

If a platform or intermediary takes part in the campaign, establish who concludes the contract with the creator and on whose behalf the payment is made. The fact that money technically passes through a particular account does not replace an analysis of the whole collaboration model.

The 50% copyright costs are not available for creativity alone

A creator may ask about applying 50% deductible costs. This option does exist, but it is not an automatic benefit available to everyone who records videos.

It must be established whether a work was created, whether the remuneration concerns the use or disposal of copyright and whether it falls within the statutory types of activity. The annual limit of these costs must also be taken into account: generally PLN 120,000. The contract should make it possible to determine what part of the payment is a copyright fee; the documentation must allow the work to be identified.

An important caveat: these 50% costs do not apply to income settled as business income. So you cannot simply issue an invoice through your business and deduct half of the revenue because creative work was done.

For the brand, an invoice is the beginning of the documentation, not the end

Campaign spending may be a tax-deductible cost if it meets the statutory conditions, including a link to earning revenue or preserving or securing its source. The name "marketing service" on an invoice does not yet show what was actually done and what the business purpose of the expense was.

I recommend keeping, for every campaign, the contract or order, the brief, the approved materials, confirmation of their delivery or publication, the settlement of remuneration and any available delivery report. For materials that disappear from the profile, it is worth taking dated screenshots showing the account straight away. For UGC intended solely for the brand, the evidence will primarily be the delivered file and its acceptance, not a publication on the contractor's profile.

A lack of sales growth does not in itself rule out the right to a cost. The rules require a justified link between the expense and revenue, not a guarantee that every campaign succeeds. Still, it is worth being able to show why a given creator was chosen and what function the advertising was meant to serve.

The right to deduct VAT is assessed separately and depends, among other things, on the link between the purchase and taxable transactions. Recognising an expense as a cost should not be equated with an automatic right to deduct the tax.

Settle taxes before the campaign, keep evidence during it

Before the campaign, pass the arrangements to the accounting team: who provides the service, what exactly they do, what they receive in return and who is responsible for the settlement.

Accounting should not learn about a barter deal only from a published Reel. And evidence of the service should not be looked for only after receiving a summons from the tax office.

About the author

Mariusz Korzeb — tax adviser, runs the Mariusz Korzeb Tax Advisory Office (Kancelaria Doradztwa Podatkowego Mariusz Korzeb). He specialises in tax advice and representing taxpayers in disputes with tax authorities. Author of publications in "Rzeczpospolita".