Abstrakt

The critical gloss has been written on the basis of three Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments which contain divergent views of the same facts. The judgments concern the issue of assessing admissibility of including the refund of costs of a workstation equipment in the income of a person applying for social welfare benefits. In two judgements, the Supreme Administrative Court recognised the refund as income, while in the third judgment, it was exceptionally not recognised as income sand considered to be a one-off cash social benefit. The authors also discuss the definition of income adopted for the purposes of social welfare.