Confiscation of contributions by ZUS - what is the problem?
In recent years, a growing number of Poles have received decisions from the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) that shatter their sense of retirement security. ZUS has withdrawn social insurance cover from hundreds of people who paid contributions regularly for over a decade, or even several decades. The Institution takes the view that the insurance title - most often an employment contract concluded with a company in which the insured person was a shareholder - was a sham and did not meet the definition of an employment relationship.
The consequences of such a decision are dramatic. ZUS wipes out the insurance periods for many years back and seizes all contributions paid during that time. People affected by this problem lose between PLN 100,000 and PLN 300,000, and in extreme cases even PLN 1 million. What is more, the loss of contribution periods may mean that the person will not even receive the minimum pension, despite paying into the system for many years.
It is particularly shocking that throughout the entire period in which contributions were paid, ZUS accepted declarations without reservation, processed payments and confirmed that there were no arrears. Only years later - sometimes after two decades - does the authority change its position and retroactively challenge the legality of the insurance.
The Polish Deal as the source of the problem - why has ZUS started challenging contributions en masse?
The origins of the current situation go back to the tax reform known as the Polish Deal (Polski Ład), introduced by the PiS government. The change in the rules on contribution liability and the classification of insurance titles gave ZUS tools to verify historical employment contracts of company shareholders. In practice, this meant that the social insurance authority began mass inspections of people who - to put it colloquially - employed themselves in a company they owned.
Data obtained through a public information request confirms the scale of the phenomenon. The number of decisions finding that a person was not subject to social insurance on the basis of an employment contract in their own company has risen steadily:
- 2020 - 155 decisions
- 2021 - 285 decisions
- 2022 - 512 decisions
- 2023 - 335 decisions
- 2024 - 317 decisions
- 2025 - 289 decisions
In total, almost 1,900 such decisions were issued in 2020-2025. These are not isolated cases - this is an established practice of the social insurance authority, affecting an ever wider group of entrepreneurs. Importantly, the problem is not limited to shareholders of single-member companies. Law firms are also being approached by people with other ownership structures who have fallen victim to similar ZUS decisions.
Who is affected by the confiscation of contributions and what are the consequences?
Profile of a typical victim
The most common victims of contribution confiscation are majority shareholders of limited liability companies (sp. z o.o.) who also worked in them as employees - for example as accountants, directors or specialists. These people acted in good faith for many years, relying on the rules in force and on ZUS's acceptance. Many of them are approaching retirement age, and for them the loss of contributions means a financial catastrophe.
Legal and financial consequences
A ZUS decision finding that a person was not subject to social insurance has a cascading effect. First, the insured person loses all contributions accumulated in the given period - pension, disability, sickness and accident contributions alike. Second, wiping out the contribution periods may make it impossible to meet the length-of-service requirement needed to obtain a pension. Third, people who relied on the insurance to receive sickness or maternity benefits may be required to repay them with interest.
Paradoxically, ZUS does not refund the contributions it has seized. The money that flowed for years into the insured person's account in the system simply disappears. The insured person is left with nothing - no contributions, no length of service and, often, additional liabilities to the Institution.
How to defend yourself against a ZUS decision to confiscate contributions?
Receiving a ZUS decision withdrawing insurance cover does not mean the matter is settled. There are effective legal routes worth pursuing - ideally with the help of an experienced lawyer specialising in social insurance law.
The key steps to take after receiving an unfavourable ZUS decision:
- Appeal to the labour and social insurance court - an appeal against a ZUS decision may be lodged within one month of its delivery. The court examines the case on its merits and may overturn or amend the authority's decision.
- Gathering documentation - evidence confirming that work was actually performed is crucial: attendance lists, business correspondence, job descriptions and witness testimony.
- Demonstrating employee subordination - the courts examine whether a genuine employment relationship existed between the shareholder and the company, including an element of management and subordination to the employer.
- Relying on the principle of trust in the authority - ZUS's acceptance of contributions without reservation over many years is an argument in favour of protecting the insured person's acquired rights.
Case law in this type of dispute is not uniform, but an increasing number of judgments are favourable to the insured. The courts recognise that retroactively challenging insurance after many years breaches the principle of legal certainty and citizens' trust in state institutions.
Announced legislative changes - will the problem be resolved?
The Ministry of Labour has officially announced work on changes to the rules on social insurance for company shareholders. The amendment is intended to close the legal loophole that allows ZUS to challenge long-standing insurance en masse. The details of the planned changes have not yet been disclosed, but the fact that the government has acknowledged the problem is a signal that the scale of the phenomenon requires a systemic solution.
Until the new rules enter into force, however, those affected should not wait idly. The deadlines for appealing against ZUS decisions are strictly defined and missing them may close off the route to defending your rights. Every day of delay reduces the chances of successfully challenging the decision of the social insurance authority.
If you have received a ZUS decision withdrawing your social insurance cover, or you are concerned that your situation may be challenged - do not delay and contact our firm. Our lawyers specialise in disputes with ZUS and will help you fight effectively to recover your lost pension contributions. An initial consultation will allow us to assess your chances and plan a strategy.
Have a question about this?
The first consultation is free - let us talk about your situation.
