In brief
- The Ministry of Finance has rewritten the procedure through which a company or a person can find out in advance how an operation they have not yet carried out will be taxed. The list of grounds on which the application can be rejected falls from 26 to 7.
- The application can once again be filed on paper or by e-mail, not only electronically, and the requirement to file it at least 90 days before the transaction disappears. The fee remains the one in the law, 5,000 euro for large taxpayers and non-residents and 3,000 euro for everyone else.
- The order applies only to applications filed after 7 September 2026. Files already on the desk of the Finance Ministry continue to be dealt with under the repealed order, the one from 2023, with all its 26 grounds for rejection.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 757 of 7 September 2026
In force from: 7 September 2026, the date of publication
From 7 September 2026, the Ministry of Finance has replaced the rules under which it answers a taxpayer who asks how a business they are only about to do will be taxed. The instrument is called an advance tax ruling (soluție fiscală individuală anticipată) and it has existed in the 2015 Tax Procedure Code, in Article 52, an article that is due to be renumbered when the code is republished. In short, the taxpayer describes a future operation, says how they believe it should be taxed, pays a fee and receives a written answer that binds the tax authority, as long as the operation is carried out exactly as described.
Who asks for such a thing? The manager of a limited company who wants to sell a block of shares and does not know whether the operation falls under corporate tax or under an exemption. A foreign company opening up an activity in Romania that wants to find out whether or not it has a permanent establishment. A group restructuring contracts that wants certainty beforehand, not a tax assessment decision four years later. The answer costs money and time, but it closes the discussion for that operation.
Order no. 1.128/2026 was signed by the minister of finance, Alexandru Nazare, on 26 August 2026 and appeared in the Official Gazette of Romania 12 days later. It approves a new procedure and repeals Order of the minister of finance no. 1.178/2023, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 263 of 30 March 2023, which lasted 1,257 days, that is 3 years, 5 months and 8 days.
The most visible difference is the length of the list of grounds on which the Finance Ministry can reject the application. The 2023 procedure had 26 grounds, lettered from a) to z), from „tranzacții ipotetice sau care comportă un grad ridicat de incertitudine”, hypothetical transactions or ones carrying a high degree of uncertainty, to „tranzacțiile propuse sunt evaluate în mod superficial și subiectiv”, the proposed transactions are assessed in a superficial and subjective manner. The 2026 procedure has 7, from a) to g), and most of them are objective: the absence of an economic purpose, an object falling outside the tax field, failure to observe a deadline, repeatedly contradictory information, a procedure already under way on the same transactions, a situation whose tax effects have already occurred.
The second change concerns the filing channel. The 2023 order required transmission „exclusiv prin mijloace electronice de transmitere la distanță”, exclusively by remote electronic means. The new point 3 of the procedure accepts paper format, e-mail, the post, the ministry’s registry and the Virtual Private Space. The documentation is filed in Romanian and must compulsorily carry an index of the documents, and papers in another language come accompanied by authorised translations, under Article 8(2) and (3) of the Tax Procedure Code.
The third change is the moment of filing. The old procedure required the application to reach the tax authority at least 90 days before the date on which the taxpayer intended to carry out the transaction. The new point 2 removes this interval: the application may be filed before or even during the implementation of the operations, on a single condition, that the factual situation should not already have produced tax effects on the date of filing.
What it changes in practice
From 7 September 2026, every new application for a tax ruling enters the route set out in the annex to the order. The first filter is a preliminary analysis, which the tax authority carries out within 15 days of the registration of the application and through which it checks only whether the formal conditions in points 3 and 4 of Chapter I are met. If they are met cumulatively, the application is admitted for analysis on the merits. The result of the preliminary analysis is communicated within 30 days of filing, by post or through the Virtual Private Space.
The analysis on the merits observes the deadline in Article 52(12) of the Tax Procedure Code, which for the tax ruling is „de până la 6 luni”, of up to 6 months. The deadline is suspended for the period between the day on which the tax authority asks for clarifications and the day on which it receives them, with Article 77 of the same code applying. The taxpayer has, under Article 52(8), 60 working days in which to reply.
The fee does not change, because it is fixed in the law, not in the order: Article 52(16) provides 5,000 euro for large taxpayers and for non-residents and 3,000 euro for the other categories, at the exchange rate communicated by the National Bank of Romania on the day of payment. What the order does set is when it is paid, within 15 days of filing the application, and where: account 20A.33.29.00 of the Ministry of Finance, tax code 4221306, IBAN RO56 TREZ 7002 0330 129X XXXX, at the Bucharest Operational Treasury.
Once issued, the tax ruling produces effects only for the taxpayer who applied for it and cannot be relied on by anyone else, not even in identical situations. The taxpayer is required to notify the tax authority in writing, within 15 days of the event, if the data underlying the ruling change or if a tax, administrative or judicial procedure begins on the same transactions. A copy of the administrative file goes to the National Tax Administration Agency, which actually administers the taxpayer.
The genuinely new element appears in Article 4(3) of the order: tax rulings may be published in anonymised form, with the written consent of the taxpayer. Until now there was no legal basis for publication, and the interpretations of the Ministry of Finance stayed in the files of those who had paid for them.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
The 2023 order had two annexes: the procedure itself and a detailed content of the application, with 11 items, several of them split into sub-points. It required, among other things, confirmation that the case fell within the categories of Action 5 of the OECD project on base erosion and of Directive 2015/2376/EU, a full analysis of the transactions from the perspective of the economic purpose, and a declaration on one’s own responsibility with five points. The new procedure gathers everything into point 4, with 8 letters, from the identification data to the signature of the legal representative. The declaration on one’s own responsibility does not disappear, but moves later in the process, to point 23, and covers only the situations in point 18.
The preliminary discussion with the tax authority was, in 2023, an almost decorative instrument. Point 8 of the old procedure said that a request for a discussion filed at the same time as the application for a tax ruling or after it „nu va fi luată în considerare”, will not be taken into consideration, and point 9 cancelled the discussion if the taxpayer filed the application itself in the meantime. The new procedure keeps the 5 working day deadline for a reply, but adds two things that were missing: the tax authority provides „orientări neangajante cu privire la existența situației fiscale de fapt viitoare și admisibilitatea cererii”, non-binding guidance on the existence of the future factual tax situation and on the admissibility of the application, and at the end the participants may agree on a summary document. In other words, the discussion can leave a piece of paper behind, even if that paper binds nobody.
The scope widens on paper. Point 3 of the old procedure limited tax rulings to the taxes, duties and contributions „reglementate de Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal”, governed by Law no. 227/2015 on the Tax Code. Article 2 of the new order speaks of those governed by „legislația fiscală, astfel cum aceasta este definită la art. 1 pct. 24” of the Tax Procedure Code, the tax legislation as defined in Article 1 point 24, that is the whole body of rules in normative acts relating to taxes, duties, social contributions and administration procedures. This is a category appreciably wider than the Tax Code.
There are losses too. In 2023, the tax ruling produced effects for the applicant taxpayer „și/sau entitățile enumerate în conținutul acesteia”, and/or the entities listed in its content. The new Article 4(1) retains only the applicant taxpayer, so a group that wanted a single interpretation for several companies in its structure must now file several applications and pay the fee each time. Gone as well are the chapters on critical assumptions, on the enforceability of the ruling, on the revocation of the approving order, on the automatic international exchange of information and on ANAF monitoring of how the rulings are applied. Some of them are covered directly by the law, in Article 52(11) and (20), others no longer have any written counterpart.
The transitional rule is the reverse of the one from 2023. At that time, Article 3 of the order said that files under examination would be dealt with under the new procedure. Now, Article 3(1) applies the order only to applications filed after entry into force, and paragraph (2) refers applications filed earlier to „dispozițiile legale în vigoare la momentul depunerii”, the legal provisions in force at the time of filing. In practice, the order repealed on 7 September 2026 continues to govern files opened before that date.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- The grounds for rejection fall from 26 to 7, and the most subjective among them, such as the „superficial and subjective” assessment of the transactions, disappear. A taxpayer can better estimate whether it is worth paying the fee.
- A tax ruling can also be requested during the implementation of the operation, not only 90 days beforehand. Many transactions do not have such a fixed calendar.
- The preliminary discussion becomes useful: the tax authority says, without binding itself, whether it sees a future factual situation and whether the application looks admissible, and at the end a summary document can be drawn up.
- Rulings may be published in anonymised form, with the taxpayer’s consent. It is the first time there is a legal basis for this, and published practice helps everyone, including those who cannot afford the fee.
- The paper channel and e-mail are back, which matters for bulky files and for those who have no access to the Virtual Private Space.
- The application can be expressly withdrawn, by a written request, up to the deadline for communicating the point of view on the draft. The old procedure did not regulate withdrawal.
What remains a problem
- The fee is paid before you know whether you will get an answer, and Article 52(19^1) of the Tax Procedure Code no longer refunds it once the file has entered analysis on the merits, not even if the application is rejected.
- The deadline of „up to 6 months” is only the administration’s deadline. Each round of clarifications suspends the deadline, and the taxpayer has 60 working days at their disposal, so a file with a single round of clarifications and a point of view on the draft can come close to a year.
- The ruling no longer covers the entities listed in its content, only the applicant. For a group, the cost is multiplied by the number of companies involved.
- The procedure does not say what happens to an application that does not pass the preliminary analysis. There is neither a rejection, nor a possibility of filing a new application, nor a rule about the fee already paid.
- Anonymised publication depends on the written consent of the taxpayer, who has no reason to give it. The provision risks remaining a dead letter.
- There is no longer any provision on the revocation of the approving order, although in 2023 there was a whole chapter, with four situations.
Practical advice
- If you have a file filed before 7 September 2026, check under which regime it is being examined. Article 3(2) leaves it under the 2023 rules, with 26 grounds for rejection and the obligation to communicate exclusively electronically. If the transaction allows it, it may be more profitable to withdraw and file a new application.
- Ask for the preliminary discussion before filing the application, not after. Article 52(3) of the Tax Procedure Code places it before filing, and at the end of it you can propose drawing up the summary document provided for in point 10.
- Pay the fee together with the filing of the application, not on the fifteenth day. Article 52(4) of the code requires the application to be accompanied by proof of payment, and the preliminary analysis also ends within 15 days.
- File one application for a single main tax obligation. Article 52(1) expressly requires it, and point 26 of the procedure confirms that the fee is paid for each main tax obligation separately.
- Do not describe alternative ways of carrying out the operation. The requirement in point 4(e) is a description of the future factual situation, and contradictory or incomplete information sent repeatedly is a ground for rejection under point 20(d).
- Include the index of documents. Point 3(2) requires it compulsorily, and its absence is checked in the preliminary analysis, in points 11 and 12.
- If any audit, any administrative procedure or any court case begins on the same transactions, notify the Finance Ministry within 15 days. Point 18(b) imposes the deadline, and a pending procedure is a ground for rejection under point 20(e).
- Set aside time to reply. The 60 working days in Article 52(8) look generous, but they suspend the deadline for settling the application, so every day you use pushes the answer further away.
Frequently asked questions
What is an advance tax ruling, in short?
Who issues the tax ruling, the Ministry of Finance or ANAF?
How much does it cost?
Do I get my money back if my application is rejected?
How long before I get the answer?
How do I send the application?
What happens to my application filed in August 2026?
Can a colleague in my line of business use the tax ruling issued to me?
Will I be able to read the rulings issued to others?
Can I ask for a tax ruling on an operation that has already started?
Errors and inconsistencies in the published text
- Article 2 of the order and point 20(b) of the annex say different things about what may be asked. Article 2 opens the procedure to the taxes, duties and social contributions governed by „legislația fiscală”, a notion defined in Article 1 point 24 of the Tax Procedure Code as the whole body of rules in normative acts relating to taxes, duties and contributions. Point 20(b) of the annex, however, rejects the application where „obiectul cererii vizează aspecte reglementate prin acte normative, altele decât Codul fiscal, sau în afara domeniului de aplicare prevăzut la art. 2 din ordin”, the object of the application concerns matters governed by normative acts other than the Tax Code, or outside the scope laid down in Article 2 of the order. The two criteria are treated as equivalent, although they are not: a contribution or a duty governed outside the Tax Code falls within the scope of Article 2 and, at the same time, falls under the ground for rejection. A taxpayer who asks about such an obligation pays 3,000 or 5,000 euro without being able to know in advance whether their question is admissible, and the money is no longer refunded once the analysis on the merits has begun.
- Point 27 gives 15 days for paying the fee, but the law requires proof of payment at the moment of filing. Article 52(4) of the Tax Procedure Code provides that the application „trebuie să fie însoțită de documente relevante pentru emitere, precum și de dovada plății taxei de emitere”, must be accompanied by documents relevant to the issue as well as by proof of payment of the issuing fee. Point 27 of the procedure says that the fee is paid „în termen de 15 zile de la data depunerii cererii”, within 15 days of the date of filing the application. On top of that, point 4(1), which lists the compulsory content of the application, does not mention proof of payment, and point 11 limits the preliminary analysis to checking points 3 and 4, even though Article 52(19^1) defines the preliminary analysis as expressly including „confirmarea încasării tarifului”, confirmation that the fee has been received. The 2023 procedure resolved this explicitly, in point 15 and in point 16(f). Here it can no longer be established whether an application without proof of payment is complete or not, and what happens if the fee never arrives.
- There is no rule at all for an application that does not pass the preliminary analysis. Point 12 regulates only the favourable case: if the conditions in points 3 and 4 are met cumulatively, the application is admitted for analysis on the merits. Point 13 requires the tax authority to notify „rezultatul analizei prealabile”, the result of the preliminary analysis, thus acknowledging that the result may also be negative, but no provision says what effect this result has. A reader in good faith can reach two opposite conclusions: either the application is rejected by order of the minister, on the residual ground in point 20(g), and then the fee is lost, or the application „is not taken into consideration”, in which case Article 52(19^1)(b) of the code gives them the right to a refund and to file a new application. The difference between the two readings is 3,000 or 5,000 euro.
Editorial analysis
The order does one good thing and does it visibly: it cuts a list of 26 grounds for rejection, many of them worded in terms nobody could anticipate, and replaces it with 7 verifiable grounds. Together with the abandonment of the 90 day deadline and the return of the paper channel, the message is that the Finance Ministry wants more applications, not fewer. Anonymised publication, even conditioned on the taxpayer’s consent, is the first crack in a system in which official interpretations remained the private property of whoever had paid for them.
The problem is the clock. The deadline in the law, „up to 6 months”, is the administration’s deadline, not the file’s. If an application comes in on 8 September 2026, the six months run to 8 March 2027, that is 181 days. On top of them, however, sit the 60 working days that Article 52(8) gives the taxpayer at each round: 60 working days starting on 8 September 2026 end on 3 December 2026, that is 86 calendar days. One round of clarifications plus the window for the point of view on the draft add 172 days, and the file reaches 353 days, almost a year. An entrepreneur who reads „6 months” plans a different calendar from one who does the addition.
The asymmetry between the deadlines imposed on the taxpayer and those the administration gives itself shows up in the small change too. Point 11 requires the preliminary analysis to be finished within 15 days of registration. Point 13 gives 30 days from filing for communicating the result. That is 15 days in which the decision exists but the applicant does not know it. The deadline for paying the fee, in point 27, also expires on the fifteenth day, which means that whoever pays on the last day allowed pays after the analysis that was supposed to confirm receipt has already finished.
The strangest consequence comes from combining Article 3 with Article 5. The 2023 order is repealed on 7 September 2026, but continues to govern files filed before that date. A company that filed on 5 September 2026 is left with 26 grounds for rejection and with the obligation to communicate exclusively electronically, while its neighbour, filing on 8 September 2026, has 7 grounds and can send the file by post. Three days separate two regimes, and the text offers no way of choosing. The only way out for the one caught in the old regime is to withdraw the application and file another, but withdrawal after the fifteenth day costs the whole fee.
The procedure described here falls squarely within the exam syllabus: Decision 8/2026 sets the syllabus and bibliography for the October 2026 tax consultant examination.
What should be changed
- Aligning point 20(b) with Article 2 of the order. If the scope is „tax legislation” within the meaning of Article 1 point 24 of the code, the ground for rejection cannot remain „normative acts other than the Tax Code”. Without this correction, half the fields the order opens up are closed by its own annex.
- An express provision for an application rejected at the preliminary analysis. It must be said whether it is rejected by order or is not taken into consideration, whether the applicant can file a new application and what happens to the fee. The practical effect: the taxpayer learns whether they are risking 3,000 euro or only a month of waiting.
- Aligning the fee payment deadline with Article 52(4) of the code. Either the application comes with proof of payment, or the law has to be amended. As things stand, a file without a receipt can be declared complete under point 12 and incomplete on a reading of the code.
- A maximum deadline for each round of clarifications. Unlimited suspension turns the 6 months into an indicative deadline. A ceiling, for example two rounds of clarifications per file, would make the total duration predictable.
- Rules for anonymised publication. The order says publication is possible, but does not say where, within what deadline and in what format. Without a public register and a deadline, Article 4(3) remains an intention. A register would in time reduce even the number of identical applications for which the state collects the fee every time.
- Restoring a rule on the revocation of the approving order. The 2023 procedure had a whole chapter, with four situations in which the order was revoked. Now there is no provision at all, even though a tax ruling can be built on information that later proves false. Without a written revocation procedure, the taxpayer in good faith and the one in bad faith end up in the same place.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania
Official Gazette of Romania no. 757 of 7 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 118 KB the act starts on page 2
Open the official PDFDownload the PDF
The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.