Lawyers associated with the Northern Chamber of Commerce receive signals that PFR calls on companies to return the money from the shields. As experts say, there is a serious misunderstanding here. Some entrepreneurs were not aware of the difference between the first and second shields and did not expect to have to return the funds granted to them.
PFR wants a refund of funds from financial shields from some entrepreneurs
The Polish Development Fund admits that it expects some entrepreneurs to return the funds paid under the Financial Shield 2.0. There are supposed to be about 2,000 such companies in Poland, and they are to receive information about the need to return the funds no later than in the fall. The refund will constitute only 0.6% of all grants awarded. However, PFR does not disclose the criterion according to which it expects the refund, but emphasizes that it is possible to divide the subsidy refund into a maximum of 24 installments.
This is a situation that will have the greatest impact on tourism, catering, the production sector and services, i.e. the companies that most actively used subsidies during the pandemic.
Entrepreneurs from whom repayment of funds is requested may even risk bankruptcy
As attorney Grażyna Wódkiewicz, a lawyer specializing in commercial matters, says, she is currently dealing with several such examples. The situation is serious because entrepreneurs from whom repayment of funds is requested may even face bankruptcy.
– In my opinion, currently seeking a refund of the subsidy from an entrepreneur who fulfilled the conditions for participation in the government program and was mistaken as to the refundable nature of the funds paid to him, remains in gross contradiction with the purpose of the Shield, which was to improve the liquidity of companies, continue their operations and maintain jobs. In the current situation, it can be said that PFR's activities do not lead to avoiding a wave of bankruptcies or job reductions, but only to postponing them, and this is not what the government program was about. In recent months, many entrepreneurs who have received lawsuits from PFR have been contacting our law firm, often with lawsuits worth multi-million sums, says attorney Grażyna Wódkiewicz.
– The entrepreneurs we are talking to, wanting to save their companies, apart from applying for a subsidy from the Shield, also often used additional loans or credits or resorted to selling a significant part of their assets, believing that saving the company, which will finally stand on its own after the pandemic, legs, it's worth it. Now they openly admit that if they had known that PFR would demand a return of the funds paid, they would not have participated in the Shield program at all or incurred additional liabilities, but would have closed their companies 2-3 years earlier, during the pandemic – paradoxically, then the unpaid costs were smaller than today – adds attorney Grażyna Wódkiewicz.
Tax experts: "It was easy to make a mistake when submitting the subsidy settlement"
Entrepreneurs associated with the Northern Chamber of Commerce appreciate how strong the government's support was for entrepreneurs during the pandemic, but at the same time they admit that the method of settling the shields turned out to be imprecise for some.
– Shield 2.0 already concerned selected industries and it was more difficult to obtain support here, among others: in the hotel and catering industry. These are quite specific industries, with high employment fluctuations, which is why many proceedings probably concern these entrepreneurs. It was easy to make a mistake when submitting the subsidy settlement. The method of calculating the average number of employees was difficult due to the complicated definition of an employee and the method of calculating the accumulated cash loss in companies where revenue adjustments were made. The moment of showing these corrections in VAT returns was important, says Agnieszka Zamaro-Wiśniewska, financial expert, Operational Director of Zamaro Tax & Accounting.
– It would be worth looking at each call individually and allowing any errors to be corrected, as it would be necessary to distinguish between deliberate misleading and error. The support granted under the Covid shields helped many entrepreneurs, and the percentage of support eligible for reimbursement is very low, which indicates that entrepreneurs dealt with unclear regulations and were honest when applying for support, adds Agnieszka Zamaro.
As president Hanna Mojsiuk adds, entrepreneurs admit that in many cases they are still struggling with the consequences of grants and subsidies obtained during the pandemic.
– I have already heard the opinion that what saved entrepreneurs during the pandemic may ruin them after it ends. We support individual interpretation for entrepreneurs who have doubts whether they should return funds. We are usually talking about representatives of the HoReCa industry who are not able to allocate such huge amounts of money at once on a market that is still not generating consistent profits for them, although of course the situation of the industry has improved significantly, says Hanna Mojsiuk, president of the Northern Chamber of Commerce in Szczecin.
