What reclassifying B2B contracts costs a company with 20 contractors, a case and calculation
This is a simulation, not a report on a real client. All the figures below, the number of contractors, invoice amounts, risk distribution, describe a hypothetical model company, built to illustrate the calculation methodology. The result of this kind of calculation for your company depends on the actual contracts, dates, and tax forms of each contractor.
- For a model company with 20 B2B contractors (average invoice 10,000 zł/month), the combined ZUS (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, the Polish social insurance institution), PIT (Podatek dochodowy od osób fizycznych, personal income tax), and interest arrears over 12 months, if PIP (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, the National Labour Inspectorate) reclassifies all of them as employment, come to roughly 935,000 złoty, before any fine.
- The fine under Article 281 § 1 of the Labor Code adds up to another 60,000 złoty per court proceeding, and that’s a separate, independent amount, not part of the ZUS arrears¹.
- Legal defense during an actual inspection and court case for 20 people at once costs roughly 12,000-58,000 złoty, under the official schedule of attorney fee rates, which charges a separate rate for each individual within a single case².
- Altogether, the “do nothing, wait for the inspection” scenario costs this model company roughly 1,000,000-1,050,000 złoty per year.
- The “audit and fix it now” scenario stops the arrears from accumulating in month one instead of month twelve, eliminates the fine, and replaces court defense with a cheaper audit: together, roughly 94,000-114,000 złoty.
- The difference isn’t an abstract “audits pay off” argument: for this simulation it’s roughly 900,000 złoty in annual savings, almost tenfold cheaper.
- The calculation for a holding structure with multiple legal entities works differently, since each entity carries its own arrears and its own fine, covered in more detail in the series article on the holding structure.
- The simulation model, who these 20 contractors are
- What ZUS and PIT cost for a year, if PIP reclassifies everyone as employment
- How much the fine adds, and why legal defense for 20 people costs more than for one
- What an audit costs now, and why the total is so much lower
- The two scenarios side by side
- What each month of delay costs a company
- Why this calculation looks different for a holding structure
- Frequently asked questions
- What to do with this calculation
- Sources
The simulation model, who these 20 contractors are
A model IT company works with 20 specialists on a JDG (Jednoosobowa działalność gospodarcza, the Polish sole proprietorship). The average invoice, 10,000 złoty per month, was chosen as a round, illustrative figure for the simulation, not as a market statistic. We split the contractors into three risk categories using the same four criteria from Article 22 § 1 of the Labor Code that we broke down in detail in the series article “Who risks losing B2B status after the PIP 2026 reform”: a single client or several, subordination, a fixed schedule and place, the right to substitution³.
| Risk category | Count | Average invoice | Markers | Contractor’s ZUS variant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | 5 | 12,000 zł/month | A single client for over 12 months, a fixed 9:00-17:00 schedule, personal performance, no right of substitution | Full (“large”) ZUS |
| Moderate (group A) | 5 | 10,000 zł/month | One or two clients, flexible schedule, but a regular monthly payment regardless of volume | Full (“large”) ZUS |
| Moderate (group B) | 5 | 10,000 zł/month | Same profile as group A | Preferential ZUS |
| Low | 5 | 8,000 zł/month | Three or more clients, paid by project milestone, own equipment | Preferential ZUS |
The company-wide weighted average invoice: (5×12,000 + 10×10,000 + 5×8,000) ÷ 20 = 10,000 złoty per month, exactly the figure often used as a benchmark for B2B-transition calculators⁴. Whether a contractor pays full or preferential ZUS doesn’t depend on their risk category, it depends on how many months they’ve been running their business: full ZUS is paid by those who’ve been on a JDG for over 24 months, and that’s exactly why, in this simulation, half of the moderate-risk contractors are on full ZUS and half on preferential ZUS, matching a real portfolio with mixed tenure⁵.
The risk category determines the likelihood of reclassification. The contractor’s ZUS variant determines the amount of arrears if reclassification happens. These are two separate variables, and calculators that conflate them produce an inaccurate result.
What ZUS and PIT cost for a year, if PIP reclassifies everyone as employment
The calculation methodology here is identical to the series article “What it costs to reclassify a B2B contract into employment: real ZUS and PIT numbers,” and the figures for the 12,000 zł invoice are taken directly from there to keep the series consistent⁶. The formula for each category: employer contributions (≈20.4%) plus employee contributions (≈13.7%) of the base, minus the contractor’s contributions as a JDG, which are credited to the employee’s account under the new Article 38b of the Social Insurance System Act⁷, plus the health contribution (9% of the base after deducting employee contributions, non-creditable), plus the PIT advance under the tax scale (12% of the taxable base, minus the monthly tax-reducing amount of 300 zł), plus late-payment interest (10.5% annually, calculated roughly for an average of six months, i.e. ≈5.25% of the arrears amount)⁸.
| Category | Monthly arrears before crediting | Credit under Art. 38b | Monthly arrears | Over 12 months with interest | ×Count | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High (12,000, full ZUS) | 5935 zł | 1927 zł | 4009 zł | 50,600 zł | ×5 | 253,000 zł |
| Moderate A (10,000, full ZUS) | 4893 zł | 1927 zł | 2966 zł | 37,460 zł | ×5 | 187,300 zł |
| Moderate B (10,000, preferential ZUS) | 4893 zł | 456 zł | 4437 zł | 56,040 zł | ×5 | 280,200 zł |
| Low (8,000, preferential ZUS) | 3847 zł | 456 zł | 3391 zł | 42,830 zł | ×5 | 214,150 zł |
| Total | 20 | 934,650 zł |
Combined ZUS, PIT, and interest arrears over 12 months for all 20 contractors: roughly 935,000 złoty, before any fine. The most important takeaway from this table isn’t the amount itself, but where it comes from: more than half (494,350 zł out of 934,650 zł) falls on the 10 moderate-risk contractors, not on the 5 contractors with the most obviously severe markers. A company that only checks its “obviously problematic” contractors and skips the “probably safe” moderate-risk ones underestimates its actual risk by nearly half.
Example. The director of the company in the table above looks at the contractor list and sees that only five of them “look risky” by obvious markers: a single client, a fixed schedule. He decides to check only those five. Does that cover most of the company’s financial risk? No. The five high-risk contractors account for only 253,000 zł out of 934,650 zł, that’s 27% of the total. The remaining 73% of the risk hides precisely in the “moderate” category, which is rarely checked first.
How much the fine adds, and why legal defense for 20 people costs more than for one
The fine under Article 281 § 1 of the Labor Code for a first violation ranges from 2,000 to 60,000 złoty, and a court sets a specific amount within that range, taking into account, among other things, the scale of the violation⁹. For a company that systematically classified 20 people as contractors instead of employees, it’s realistic to expect a figure closer to the upper end of the range rather than a token minimum, though the act doesn’t set a direct “more people, higher fine” formula within that same range. Open question: whether a court might, instead of a single fine within the 2,000-60,000 zł range, treat each employment relationship as a separate offense and impose 20 separate fines, is a question none of the series’ baseline articles can answer conclusively, since practice under the new act hasn’t yet settled as of mid-2026. In this simulation we calculate conservatively: one fine, up to 60,000 złoty, rather than multiplying by the number of people.
Legal defense costs more for a case involving 20 people for a reason that’s rarely explained: the official schedule of attorney fee rates directly provides that defending or representing several individuals in a single proceeding is billed as a separate rate for each person, not one shared rate for everyone². For cases concerning subjection to social insurance (exactly the type of case that arises when appealing a ZUS decision on arrears), the minimum rate is 360 złoty per person¹⁰. For 20 contractors at once, that’s:
| Defense component | Calculation | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum rate for ZUS-subjection cases, per person | 360 zł × 20 | 7200 zł |
| The same case, maximum for complexity (sixfold the minimum rate under the regulation)¹¹ | 7200 zł × 6 | 43,200 zł |
| Court defense against the PIP fine itself (separate proceeding, market rates)¹² | 5000-15,000 zł | 5000-15,000 zł |
| Total legal defense | 12,200-58,200 zł |
Summary of the “do nothing, wait for the inspection” scenario over 12 months: 934,650 zł of arrears + up to 60,000 zł fine + 12,200-58,200 zł of legal defense = roughly 1,007,000-1,053,000 złoty.
Defending twenty people in one proceeding doesn’t cost what one person’s defense would cost multiplied in your head, it costs literally what the official rate charges: a fee for each individual person in the case.
What an audit costs now, and why the total is so much lower
The savings mechanism here isn’t that an audit magically erases arrears that have already accrued. The company pays the arrears for the actually worked period regardless, that follows directly from the series article on the cost of reclassification: the voluntary-transition window only exempts you from the fine, not from ZUS and PIT for the past¹³. The savings come from three specific, separate sources, not from one vague “audits pay off”:
- Arrears accumulate every month while the risky practice continues. An audit in month one instead of waiting for an inspection in month twelve stops the accumulation at one month instead of twelve. For all 20 contractors at once, an 11-month difference in accumulation means a difference of roughly 860,000 złoty in arrears alone.
- A voluntary transition before the inspection eliminates the fine entirely. The window runs until 8 July 2027, and that’s exactly what turns a possible 60,000-złoty fine into zero¹³.
- A proactive audit is cheaper than reactive court defense. Compare 12,000-32,000 zł for an operating-model audit with 12,200-58,200 zł for defense in an actual proceeding for the same 20 people.
Market rates for B2B contract audits in Polish legal practice run 3,000-8,000 złoty per package of five contracts¹⁴; for 20 contracts, that’s roughly 12,000-32,000 złoty on a linear scale, though the actual package price is often lower than simple multiplication due to economies of scale. The exact price of the “B2B operating model audit” format for a specific company at MojaFirma is agreed individually after assessing the number of contracts, the same as noted in the series article on audit pricing¹⁵.
| “Audit now” component | Calculation | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Arrears for 1 month for all 20 contractors (instead of 12) | sum of the monthly arrears of the four categories from the table above, with 1 month of interest instead of 12 | 74,670 zł |
| B2B operating model audit (market benchmark, MojaFirma’s price agreed separately) | 3000-8000 zł × 4 | 12,000-32,000 zł |
| Legal support for amending 15 moderate- and low-risk contracts (rough estimate, not the sole source) | ≈500 zł per contract × 15 | 7500 zł |
| Fine | Avoided through voluntary transition by 8 July 2027 | 0 zł |
| Total for “audit now” | 94,000-114,000 zł |
Summary: the “audit and fix it now” scenario costs roughly 94,000-114,000 złoty instead of 1,007,000-1,053,000 złoty under the waiting scenario. For this simulation, the difference is about 900,000-950,000 złoty per year, an almost tenfold difference, and it’s made up entirely of the three sources above, not one opaque discount.
The two scenarios side by side
| Component | Do nothing (12 months) | Audit now (1 month) |
|---|---|---|
| ZUS, PIT arrears, interest | 934,650 zł | 74,670 zł |
| PIP fine | up to 60,000 zł | 0 zł |
| Legal defense / audit and fix | 12,200-58,200 zł | 19,500-39,500 zł |
| Total | ≈1,007,000-1,053,000 zł | ≈94,000-114,000 zł |
Example. The CFO of the model company sees this table and asks: will the company really pay exactly 1,030,000 złoty if it does nothing? No. That’s a rough figure for a specific hypothetical portfolio with a specific risk and invoice distribution. The real amount for your company depends on the actual invoices, when each contractor started working with you, and how many of them genuinely show the markers of employment. But the order of magnitude, arrears in the hundreds of thousands, a fine in the tens of thousands, defense costing more than an audit, stays the same regardless of your portfolio’s exact numbers.
What each month of delay costs a company
This calculation can be reduced to one practical figure for an owner or HR lead: every additional month of waiting costs the company roughly 74,670 złoty in extra arrears for a portfolio of 20 contractors (the figure in the “1 month” row above), and this sum grows linearly for as long as the risky practice continues. If a company spends 6 months “thinking about an audit” before ordering one, the price of that decision is about 6 × 74,670 = 448,000 złoty in extra arrears that can’t be undone once PIP has inspected.
Counter-example, a smaller company. The owner of a small business with only 5 contractors (instead of 20), the same average invoice of 10,000 złoty, and a similar risk distribution (1 high, 3 moderate, 1 low), is wondering whether they need an operating-model audit at all, or whether that’s a format only for large companies. The proportionally reduced 12-month arrears come to roughly 234,000 złoty (¼ of 934,650 zł), while the rough audit price for 5 contracts stays the same as the market rate for one package, 3,000-8,000 złoty¹⁴. Does an audit still make economic sense for such a smaller company? Yes. The ratio of arrears to audit price for a smaller portfolio is the same order of magnitude as for 20 contractors, because arrears grow proportionally to the number of people, while the audit price grows more slowly thanks to economies of scale.
Why this calculation looks different for a holding structure
The simulation above calculates a single legal entity with 20 direct B2B contracts. If those 20 people are formally split between two or more related legal entities (a common structure for companies with a foreign owner), the arrears and the fine are calculated separately for each legal entity that is formally a party to the contract, rather than consolidated across the whole group at once. This doesn’t always reduce the combined risk, often the opposite: if each legal entity has its own director and its own PIP decision, the number of separate proceedings goes up rather than down. We break down in detail, using a concrete case, exactly where the biggest financial risk hides in a two-entity holding structure, and how the combined amount is calculated for such a structure, in the series article “Case study: the two-company holding structure where the biggest risk hides,” while the general methodology for splitting liability between related companies is covered in the series article on holding structures and PIP.
Frequently asked questions
Are these real numbers from an actual MojaFirma client? No. This is a hypothetical simulation with rounded, illustrative figures (20 contractors, average invoice 10,000 zł), built to illustrate the calculation methodology. The real amount for your company depends on the actual invoices, dates, and tax forms of each contractor, and requires a separate audit.
Why are the moderate-risk arrears (494,350 zł) larger than the high-risk arrears (253,000 zł), if high risk is “worse”? Because in this simulation the moderate-risk category is twice as large (10 contractors versus 5), and the risk category determines the likelihood of reclassification, not the arrears amount for a single contractor. A larger headcount within a category outweighs a higher probability in another category.
Can you avoid the fine while still owing the ZUS arrears? Yes, that’s exactly how the voluntary-transition window until 8 July 2027 works: it exempts you from the fine under Article 281 § 1 of the Labor Code, but not from the ZUS and PIT arrears for the actual cooperation period up until the fix¹³.
Does legal defense for 20 people really cost more than just multiplying the price of one case by 20? No, quite the opposite: the official rate (360 zł per person for ZUS-subjection cases) is already multiplied by headcount under § 17 of the regulation, this isn’t our estimate but a direct legal norm². The real market price of full court defense usually doesn’t scale linearly with headcount, because a large share of an attorney’s work (analyzing the company’s overall practice, preparing a shared defense strategy) is done once for everyone, not separately for each contractor.
Does this simulation include the ongoing cost of moving high-risk contractors to employment contracts permanently? No. The simulation only calculates the risk tied to the past period: arrears, the fine, defense, or the audit. The ongoing cost of keeping someone on an employment contract instead of B2B (higher due to full employer contributions) is a separate, recurring cost line that arises identically in both scenarios after the fix, and isn’t a “penalty” for past practice.
What should I do if my company has a completely different risk distribution, say 15 high-risk contractors out of 20? The calculation methodology stays the same, only the share of the “high risk” category in the total grows. A B2B operating model audit, which calculates each contract individually rather than using the average profile from this article, gives you the exact figure for your actual distribution.
What to do with this calculation
The exact amount for your company depends on the actual contracts, when each contractor started working with you, and each one’s tax form, not on a single averaged simulation from this article. The mechanics of the calculation, how arrears are computed (the series article on ZUS and PIT), how much the fine costs (the series article on PIP fines), how to fix a contract (the 12-point checklist), and how much an audit costs (the series article on audit pricing), are the same for any portfolio; only the input numbers change.
If you work through your own JDG. Order the online B2B audit: fill out a questionnaire about your situation, and within 48 hours receive a report with a risk category and a rough estimate of the financial consequence for your specific contract.
If you own or run HR at a company with several B2B contractors. Order the B2B operating model audit: it checks the contracts, invoices, and ZUS data of each contractor individually, and gives a rough estimate of the combined arrears for the whole company using the methodology from this article, applied to your real numbers rather than a simulation.
See also: How much does reclassifying a B2B contract into an employment contract cost, PIP 2026 in Poland: the complete guide for B2B contractors, 7 signs your B2B contract is disguised employment.
Sources
- Act of 11 March 2026 amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate and certain other acts, Journal of Laws 2026 item 473, Art. 3 (amendment of Art. 281 § 1 of the Labor Code, a fine of 2000-60,000 zł for a first violation)
- Notice of the Minister of Justice of 12 February 2026 on the publication of the consolidated text of the Minister of Justice’s regulation of 22 October 2015 on fees for attorney services, Journal of Laws 2026 item 215, § 17 item 2 (a fee for each of the represented individuals in the same proceeding)
- Kodeks pracy (Polish Labor Code), Art. 22 § 1
- MojaFirma’s own simulation, illustrative values adopted for demonstration purposes, not market statistics
- ZUS contribution amounts for entrepreneurs in 2026 (large ZUS for businesses over 24 months old, preferential ZUS for new entrepreneurs), ZUS, Contributions of Entrepreneurs in 2026 (official bulletin)
- Series article “What it costs to reclassify a B2B contract into employment: real ZUS and PIT numbers” (calculation methodology and baseline figures for a 12,000 zł/month invoice)
- Act on the Social Insurance System, Journal of Laws 2026 item 199, Art. 38b (added by Journal of Laws 2026 item 473)
- Notice of the Minister of Finance and Economy of 6 March 2026 on the rate of late-payment interest on tax arrears, Official Gazette (M.P.) 2026 item 269 (a rate of 10.5% annually)
- Journal of Laws 2026 item 473, Art. 3 (amendment of Art. 281 § 1 of the Labor Code); no settled case law yet on how a fine is assessed when multiple employment relationships are found simultaneously, as of mid-2026
- Journal of Laws 2026 item 215, § 9 sec. 2 (a minimum rate of 360 zł for cases concerning subjection to social insurance)
- Journal of Laws 2026 item 215, § 15 sec. 3 (a fee of up to six times the minimum rate for particularly complex cases)
- How much an attorney costs in a civil case in 2026, Factolex Kancelaria Adwokacka, 2026 (market rates of 5000-15,000 zł for full court representation in a moderately complex case, third-party illustrative data)
- Journal of Laws 2026 item 473, Art. 16 (voluntary adjustment period until 8 July 2027, exemption only from the offense fine)
- Market rates for B2B contract audits at law firms, Kancelaria Adwokacka Marcin Orlicki, April 2026 (illustrative data, not a MojaFirma offer)
- Series article “B2B contract audits before PIP: what lawyers check and what it costs” (MojaFirma audit formats, price to be agreed with the client)
Legal status as of: August 28, 2026.
This article is not legal or tax advice. All the figures in this article, including the risk distribution, number of contractors, and invoice amounts, are a hypothetical simulation to illustrate the calculation methodology, not data from an actual MojaFirma client or market statistics. The real amount of arrears, fine, and defense cost for your company depends on the specific contracts, dates, and circumstances, and requires a separate audit and confirmation from a MojaFirma accountant and lawyer before any decision. Author: Valerii Kushnirskyi, in-house legal practitioner at MojaFirma.
Got a question about this article?
Write it in a comment below. We read every one and reply.
Add comment