The new rule proposed by Finance becomes a serious taxation in the field of tax legislation, says a former ANAF vice -president. “It's like a guillotine”

The Chamber of Fiscal Consultants (CCF) welcomes the determination of the government to repeal the minimum tax on the turnover (IMCA), but they consider surprising the new proposal, say the consultants in a message sent hotnews.ro. In addition, they say, the proposal does not align with the political doctrine of any of the coalition parties.

They sent an address to the Ministry of Finance expressing their point of view.

“The new rule proposed by MF additionally charges all the companies in Romania that are part of a national or international group, not for their lack of profitability in Romania, but for the simple fact that they carry out economic and financial operations within the group, including financing. It's like And as through an “original” guillotine type fiscal instrument we intervene and even make the normal functioning of the most used business model in the world, and this contravenes not only the devoted and well-known rules and principles of the EU, but also to other international treaties to which Romania is a party, including the EU accession treaty.“, said Doru Dudaș, former Vice -President of ANAF and general manager in the Ministry of Finance, current president of the CCF Fiscal Committee.

The proposed rule no longer has the character of correction of the slippages of some taxpayers, but it becomes a taxation in the field of tax legislation, which does not find equivalent within the European and international framework.

In addition, the analysis of these measures reveals another unusual situation. The proposal does not seem to align with the political doctrine of any of the component parties of the coalition, as shown below:

• Liberal perspective: the proposed measures block economic development and discourage investments, being in contradiction with the liberal principles supported by PNL;

• The social-democratic perspective: the proposals do not concern exclusively the multinationals with weak performances in Romania, but uniformly penalizes both Romanian and foreign investors who fulfill their fiscal obligations very correct-approach that do not align with the PSD doctrine;

• The perspective of the economic balance: the measures do not reflect a balanced approach in support of the economic development, a fundamental principle for the UDMR;

• The perspective of social equity: The proposals do not meet the criteria of a fair measure and in the spirit of social justice, central values ​​for USR.

In the note of substantiation of the proposal, references are made to the percentage of 3% that would be used in the USA within the so-called Beat (Base Erosion Anti-ABUSE tax, a fee reconfirmed in the recent OBBBA-One Big Beautiful Bill Act).

In order to clarify this attempt to show that a mechanism used by the US would have been taken, that is, a good practice, we have to specify that any comparison is totally free and unfounded, as long as the drunk ceiling is calculated by referring to the entire deductible expenses of a company (not just the same, the amount of this nature, the with the general rate of profit tax.

“In other words, the proposal of the Ministry of Finance radically changes the formula of calculation, but artificially retains the percentage of 3% of the American model, using it for a different purpose from the drunk mechanism referred to.”said Adrian Luca, first vice-president in the Superior Council of the CCF.

Even in the case of the ceiling of 3% applied in Poland for so-called transferred profits, the calculation formula takes into account the entire mass of potentially deductible expenses and is applied only for transactions with non-resident partners from uncooperative tax jurisdictions or with very low taxation, not for all natural and correct transactions, including all affiliates, Therefore, the proposal of the Ministry of Finance does not take over the American and the Polish mechanism itself, but only the percentage of 3%, but applied “original” after another calculation formula and for a completely different purpose and, of course, with negative economic effects for Romania.

The proposal brings unpredictable effects, generated by its excessive general character, which ignores the inevitable differences between the sectors of activity and does not take into account the economic performance of the various categories of taxpayers. In practice, this translates into a significant increase in fiscal load for companies-especially for those with integrated business models-reaching in some cases even at almost 50%, including for groups of companies, hard formed, with Romanian capital. However, such an effect has nothing to do with the objective of increasing the voluntary conformation, which the proposal claims to follow.

For a foreign investor it is at least upset that if it does not bring documents, it can deduce 50% insignificant expenses with the service car, but if based on documents it brings from its group to finance tens of millions and services absolutely necessary for the development of the Romanian branch at a correct price, it pays the right tax, it cannot deduce the state.

Simply, the aberrant situation is reached in which the investor is penalized for the simple fact that he is part of a group.

Essentially, the proposal risks creating the premises for rejecting integrated business models, widely used in the European and global economy, by unjustified limiting their use in Romania.

We emphasize that this effect that must be understood at its true dimension. A company that can demonstrate, based on well-founded documents and analyzes, why it is more advantageous and, in many cases, has no other alternative to the group loan (because it does not find that mix between loan-price-condication), will reach the situation of not being able to deduce the financing costs. This means, practically, the loss of any external competitiveness for Romanian companies and blocking the financing for a large part of the serious companies in Romania.

Please refer to the address sent by the Chamber of Fiscal Consultants to the Ministry of Finance