1. 1% in Poland

2. Context
System was introduced as part of new legislation Public Benefit Law in Taxpayers were able to use allocation mechanism in 2004 for their 2003 fiscal year.
The work on the law started in 1996 and lasted for about 7 years. Hungarian inspiration was important (in 1% context)
Law is much, much … broader than 1% (acces to public money, compacts., acces to media, rights of volunteer…)
It was amended several times. From the point of view of tax allocation, the most important change was introduced in the tax office has been transferring the monies on behalf of the taxpayers (not taxpeyers temselves).

3. Basic elements of the 1% system
Right to direct 1% of PIT applies to individual persons (including those who run one-person enterprises). Extremly simple (from the taxpayers side):
just write registry number
Voluntarily: individual annotation about specific purpose of allocation
Voluntarily: will to pass information (name of donor to beneficiaries)
Beneficiaries of 1% PIT allocations include only NGOs, which obtained the status of Public Benefit Organizations, including:
NGOs understood as institutions, which are not public sector entities and do not operate for profit,
Working in one of 33 fields of public benefit areas
legal persons and persons without legal personality, including foundations and associations,
legal persons and organizational entities of the Polish National Catholic Church, and other churches and religious communities,
Public Benefit Organization is a specific legal form of organization, which makes it possible for the institutions to use many privileges, including the 1% of income tax.

4. The PBO (Public Benefit Organizations)
Status can be obtained at the request of an organization. The decision on its issue is taken by the Registration Court which can also withdraw such a status.
The conditions for being granted the status are, among others:
carrying out public benefit activities, serving general needs of the community or a specific group of entities in a particularly difficult life or material situation;
allocating the profit to public benefit purposes;
having statutory authority of control or supervision (with no personal or professional relationship with members of the board);
a ban on performing functions in its governing bodies of persons convicted for an offense prosecuted by public indictment or a tax offense;
establishment of a statutory bans related to the „private use” of assets of organizations

5. PBO obligations
In order to provide better transparency to the general public, public benefit organizations submit and present their substantive and financial report to the minister competent for social protection.
The report has quite an extensive form (depending on the size of organizations).
The report is submitted online and creates a publicly available database.
Information submitted by public benefit organizations include sections describing revenues and expenditures, broken down by their types, in particular in relation to the 1% PIT mechanism, as well as expenditures covered with them (along with those that have been incurred in collecting the 1% PIT). A special part of the report consists of information about salaries in organizations.
In case of failure to report in a timely manner, the privilege of getting the 1% PIT is suspended

6. Number of taxpayers using 1% allocation

7. Amount of 1% PIT allocated in mln EUR

8. Last year 1% allocation is used by 57% of those who can allocate
Saturation phase?
Last year 1% allocation is used by 57% of those who can allocate
74% off total possible amount

9. Number of PBO registered in Poland (000)

10. Habbits of hart ?
 32% of those who allocate 1% use special „sub-account” of PBOs decicated to individual persons.
29% of those who allocate 1% is supporting PBO for their „general operations” – not secifaing any special puropse or program

11. PBO obligation „updates” (2nd generation problems)
PBO when using resources from 1% for promotional and fundraising cost is obliged to clearly inform about it.
Computer programs used by tax payers to fill tax forms have to inform in advance whether they are „fixed” or „open” to choose allocation of 1% to any given PBO or only specific one.
Ban on „bypassing” resources to organization without PBO status

12. New info-initiatives

15. 5 main challenges + Bonus(?)
Fact of massive “privatization” of tax allocation to individuals (in most cases facing difficult health conditions) and using public benefit organizations only as intermediary.
Second in a way similar. Organizations and institutions (even public like schools) are not having public benefit status are using public benefit organization as intermediary.
Third, system is far away form initial intention of „rational chocie among competing public goods”. In majority of cases public campaigns to reach tax payers are based on purely emotional (not factual) messages
Fourth - extremly skeewed distribution towards few organizations (intermidiaries)
Fifth – risk of „canibalizing” real philanthropy / volunteerism (it is more about mental / axilogical than financial dimension)
Bonus – since last year slow growth of 1% allocation for watchdogs and human rigts organizations

16. Communicating 1% - on the edge …. I want be here tomorrow …

19. Back to where we started
Back to where we started? Can 1% generate local resources to support „democratic immunology” ?
Example of spontanious (?) activism:
Petition – Delegalize all „Soros Foundations” in Poland!!!
(Batory Fountation, Hate Stop, Refugee Wellcome etc.)