The bonus of 3% granted to taxpayers paying tax and tax on the income of micro -enterprises, established last year by the government, should have been simple to apply, but things are not so.
The bonus of 3% is hard to obtain. Photo shutterstock
The normative act provides for clear criteria for granting and a simple procedure for both beneficiaries and fiscal authority. “Only that the rules of application, issued with a delay of half a year, have introduced a number of additional conditions that limit the access of the facility, despite the principles of law that prohibit the modification of an emergency ordinance by an order of minister.”, Points out Emanuel Bondalici, Senior Managing Associate, Reff & Asociaţii – Legal Deloitte.
This facility, valid starting with the financial results for 2024, followed, together with the fiscal amnesty, to encourage the observance of the fiscal obligations, by granting a small fiscal benefit to the taxpayers who meet certain clear conditions, established by law.
Initial conditions for applying the bonus
According to GEO 107/2024, the bonus benefits the taxpayers legal persons paying tax and tax on the income of the micro -enterprises, provided they submit within the legal term all the compulsory tax declarations and to fully pay the fiscal obligations for the year 2024.
It is very important to note that, in order to obtain the facility, the taxpayer does not have to submit a request – the central fiscal body finds the conditions fulfill and issues a decision to grant the bonus.
The amounts thus obtained are not returned, but are compensated with other tax obligations of the taxpayer concerned. The money is returned only if, within the term of fiscal, for five years, no compensations have been operated.
Therefore, the conditions for granting are expressly provided in the normative act of adoption and do not contain additional restrictions. Consequently, GEO 107/2024 establishes a clear, predictable and well -defined fiscal facility, representing a won right of the taxpayer who respects his fiscal obligations.
The procedure for applying the above provisions should have been published within 45 days from the entry into force of GEO 107/2024 (until October 22, 2024).
Legislative and legal irregularities
However, the procedure was published only in April 2025 (by Order no. 540/2025), the expert adds that, in addition, it contains two essential changes to the text of the ordinance, namely the possibility of diminishing the bonus if the taxpayer submits rectifying statements that reduce the fiscal obligation related to the year 2024 which results in increased tax obligations or in other situations where the conditions of the law are no longer fulfilled (this last provision is extremely vague and leaves room for numerous interpretations).
From a technical point of view, the disposition regarding the diminution or cancellation of the bonus is problematic for several reasons.
First of all, the Order of Minister (Order 540/2025) is a normative act inferior to an emergency ordinance (GEO 107/2024), and the administrative law and the established law principles do not allow a lower rank normative act to modify or introduce new conditions compared to the provisions of a higher rank. And in this case, the Order imposes additional conditions and restrictions on the winning right of the taxpayer according to GEO 107/2024, which is incompatible with the principles of security and legal stability.
Secondly, the bonus is a right acquired with the respect of the initial conditions and cannot be arbitrarily canceled on the basis of subsequent changes that were not provided in the law.
Therefore, the analysis of the conditions for granting the bonus must be made according to the text of the law at the time of submitting the annual tax declaration, not on the basis of additional rules subsequently imposed, by a lower normative act as legal power.
Consequences and risks for taxpayers
In case the taxpayers have already filed rectifying statements or have benefited from compensation before issuing the order, they risk not only the cancellation of the bonus, but including the payment of delay interest and penalties, which can generate additional costs. This practice creates a dangerous precedent, similar to the controversial situations related to the previous fiscal amnesties, where the legislator's express legislative intervention was needed to clarify that the restoration of the tax inspection does not decline the taxpayer from the rights already won.
In conclusion, says the specialist, the discretionary extension of the legal conditions by a lower order of the law represents a dangerous and illegal precedent, which must be avoided, to ensure predictability and legal security to the taxpayers and not to discourage the correct fiscal behavior.
