Romania’s National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) has introduced new risk criteria for negative VAT returns submitted with a refund request. The Chamber of Fiscal Consultants (CCF) says the rules can subject compliant businesses to delays and anticipated tax inspections, with possible consequences for investment, exports and supplier liquidity. The concerns matter to firms working around public contracts because VAT timing can affect the cash available for delivery and investment, although the source reports criticism of the mechanism rather than a proven finding against ANAF.
The procedure behind the dispute
The contested mechanism applies to negative VAT returns where the taxpayer asks for the balance to be refunded. Under ANAF Order 1123/21.09.2026, new fiscal-risk indicators are used to assess whether a claim presents a risk of an improper refund. A claim identified as risky is then subject to an anticipated tax inspection. This is a screening process rather than an automatic finding that the claimant has breached tax rules. The CCF has written to the Ministry of Finance and ANAF, arguing that the criteria can catch taxpayers that present no real risk. For businesses, the transferable point is that a refund request is not assessed only by the documents supporting the transaction, but also through risk signals concerning ownership, suppliers and the size of the claim.
Opaque ownership and supplier tests
One criterion concerns whether shareholders, associates or directors appear in a special database relating to the risk of improper VAT refunds. The CCF says companies cannot see who is recorded in that database and that the rule sets no ownership threshold. It gives the example of an associate holding 1-15%: such a person may be unable to determine or block a general meeting decision and may not even be affiliated with the company. Another criterion can penalise a taxpayer for a supplier’s conduct, including missing D300, D394, D390 or D406 returns, arrears, e-Factura discrepancies or an internal database entry. The CCF says those matters are protected by fiscal secrecy and therefore cannot be known by the good-faith customer.
Investment can look like an unexplained spike
A further risk indicator applies when the requested refund rises significantly compared with earlier claims. The source gives a machinery purchase worth 2 million lei as an example: at a VAT rate of 21%, it creates a deduction increase of more than ten times an ordinary history. The CCF says the order does not define the comparison base, meaning a legally carried-forward balance over 12 months can appear as an increase and a first claim is mathematically an infinite increase. This matters for investment and exports because a legitimate change in the business cycle may trigger additional scrutiny precisely when a firm has committed cash to equipment or expanded activity. No independent finding is reported that these cases have been wrongly rejected.
The cash-flow effect reaches suppliers
The CCF argues that delayed refunds can restrict liquidity, postpone investment and reduce activity, turnover and profit. Dan Manolescu, its president, says the resulting fall in profit tax and domestic VAT collection could outweigh the risk the filter is designed to prevent. The organisation also says delayed payments to suppliers transfer the liquidity problem along the chain, prompting suppliers to defer their own payments, including current tax obligations, and reduce activity. The CCF links its concern to Paper Consult (C-101/16), a Court of Justice of the European Union case, saying Romanian law corrected the relevant approach from 1 January 2017. The association’s proposed safeguards are thresholds, responsibility for the taxpayer’s own conduct, individual analysis and a route to challenge decisions.
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Issuing authority | National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) |
| Order | ANAF Order 1123/21.09.2026 |
| Returns covered | Negative VAT returns with an option for a refund |
| Risk indicators | 24 new fiscal-risk indicators, described as 13+11 |
| Machinery example | A purchase worth 2 million lei |
| VAT rate in example | 21% |
| CCF submission | Sent to the Ministry of Finance and ANAF |
A filter that targets fraud, not the compliant economy, is achievable with existing digital tools, the CCF says.
WHY IT MATTERS
VAT refunds can be working capital for investment, exports and payments to suppliers. A risk-based filter is intended to protect the budget against improper refunds, but the CCF argues that unclear thresholds, confidential data and supplier-related criteria may delay cash for businesses that have not themselves breached the rules. For public procurement markets, the practical lesson is that tax administration can affect delivery capacity indirectly through the liquidity of contractors and their supply chains.
Reported from economedia.ro, 2026-10-15. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
