When the bargain becomes taxable: what implications and complications could arise from the “Temu tax” and what the legislator should consider in order to solve them
Diary of a controversial legislative package – an overview of some of the radical measures adopted to overcome the budgetary-fiscal crisis (III)
While the Constitutional Court has postponed the ruling on the legislative package in the tax field for October 20, 2025, the measures included in it continue to raise concerns about the effects that will be generated in the economy. Among them, there was the fixed fee of 25 lei on non-EU parcels under 150 euros, which caused intense reactions from the e-commerce and logistics market.
In the “Journal of a controversial fiscal package” we try to analyze the most problematic legislative provisions from the regulations included in Package 2 of the fiscal-budgetary reform, from an exclusively technical perspective.
After the first two episodes we analyzed limitation of tax deductibility in the case of intra-group services provided by non-residents and respectively hindering taxpayers' access to the staggered tax obligationsin this third episode we analyze 1) the operational-logistical implications of the legal regulation; 2) the economic impact of the tax and its fiscal and contraventional implications; 3) in order to draw some conclusions about a tax that seems minor, but raises major questions.
- The operational-logistical implications of legal regulation: an uncertain future for couriers and the market
The tax, known by the informal name released by the media as “Temu tax”, is intended, according to the Government, to protect Romania's economic interests, to ensure fiscal equity, respectively to lead to the improvement of control over imported products and, finally, to bring additional revenues to the budget.
This is in the context where, as mentioned, Romanians daily order hundreds of thousands of products from platforms such as Temu, Shein or AliExpress, attracted by the low prices and fast delivery, turning non-EU online trade into a competitive force for the local market. Careful analysis, however, reveals the complexity and potential pitfalls of this legislative tax measure.
Thus, on the one hand, the question can be justifiably raised as to whether this fixed amount applied to parcels from outside the EU is, in fact, a disguised customs tax, an area that falls strictly under the competence of the European Union, which would risk violating European regulations.
On the other hand, the practical implementation of this tax may generate insurmountable operational difficulties, in particular, compared to the short time left until its application (ie November 1), to the extent that it will not be declared unconstitutional. This makes the remaining time frame for the preparation and adoption of methodological norms – 30 days from the entry into force of the law, according to the provisions contained in it – to be of minimal practical use for those targeted to bear the sanctions (ie couriers). This, in particular, also taking into account the need to discuss the rules and the possible adjustments necessary to make them properly applicable, as it is hard to imagine – compared to the experiences in other cases – that the approach will be a perfect one from its first implementation.
- The economic impact of the tax and its correlative fiscal and contravention dimensions: who actually foots the bill and market reactions
Although the law stipulates that the payment obligation rests with the supplier of the products, the collection, declaration and transfer of the tax are put in the charge of the courier companies, being practically transformed into tax collectors, without having the necessary infrastructure, clear procedures or legal protection. It is not known exactly how the courier companies will be able to access all the information necessary to determine the parcels for which they must collect the tax, how the tax will be collected and, crucially, if the courier companies will not end up having to pay it from their own funds, which raises the question of whether it will not even come to the point of refusing to carry out the delivery, assumptions that it is difficult to imagine that they would have been desired or even expected by the legislator when adopting the legislative measure.
This burden, unfair and difficult to sustain, is amplified by significant fines provided for couriers who do not declare the tax collected – sanctions that, in a complicated and unpredictable logistical context, risk not only being disproportionate, but also targeting scenarios where there is no fault on the part of the couriers.
Analyzing the text of the legal regulation from an economic perspective, beyond the statements that are the basis of its adoption, it can be easily anticipated that, although the 25 lei fee is not paid directly by the buyer at the time of the order, it would inevitably be passed on to him. Thus, to the extent that online platforms will see themselves in a position to bear this fee, they will most likely include it in the final price of the product or add it to the cost of delivery. However, if in the (rather exceptional) cases of cash-on-delivery deliveries, this perspective is simple and obvious, by reference to the texts of the law themselves, it will prove much more complicated, if not impossible, in the other situations, which the law does not seem to have had in mind.
This, since the courier companies do not have any elements of coercion of the debtors of the logistics tax, on the basis of which they act as tax collectors of the State, as this legal regulation wants them to do. Complicated negotiations and effective contractual and practical mechanisms will therefore be necessary to obtain the amounts that must be declared and paid in the 25th of the following month from the date of delivery of the package to the beneficiary. Unfortunately, there does not seem to have been any consideration of whether or not this tax was collected from its debtors (ie, essentially, merchants in China), with couriers liable to the penalty of incurring their own tax liability for these amounts. However, as it is impossible to imagine that the courier companies would accept to bear the huge sums intended for collection by the Government, it would not be excluded even the termination of collaboration with merchants from China, which will inevitably affect the former from an economic point of view.
In the end, it is expected that in one way or another the practical impact of this tax will also be borne by the Romanian consumer, either because he will end up paying more for the same product, or because he will no longer have access to this product at all, following the disappearance of the logistic delivery chain on the Romanian market. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the measure in achieving the stated goals and about the possible collateral damage on purchasing power and, of course, on the Romanian economy itself, which will be affected by the new regulation.
And to get an idea of the magnitude of the phenomenon, the figures circulated in the press mention that more than 225,000 parcels under 150 euros enter Romania daily. Thus, the Government estimates revenues of 1.3 billion lei annually from this tax, justifying it by the fact that non-EU platforms currently avoid paying VAT and customs duties, which gives them a major competitive advantage.
But how does the market react? On the one hand, Temu has officially conveyed that it could avoid the tax if it ships from European warehouses rather than directly from China, although verifying the origin of all parcels remains a major logistical challenge. On the other hand, local merchants and e-commerce associations are calling for urgent measures to balance the market. They do not ask for protectionism, but clear rules applicable to all, proposing the elimination of the exemption from customs duties for parcels under 150 euros and the taxation of income where the products are consumed, in order to create an environment of fair competition.
- Conclusion: Hasty regulation or a step towards equity?
The “Temu Tax” seems, at first sight, to be a minor fiscal measure, intended to contribute to the generation of revenues so expected by the legislative package in the tax field. In reality, it opens a broad discussion about fiscal fairness, proportionality, legislative competence and the ability to implement measures that correspond to the stated goals, by adopting clear and uncontroversial provisions and, above all, that do not exactly affect the economic agents in Romania or the beneficiaries of the parcels sent from China with their help, but only target the senders of these parcels, as stated that it is intended.
If it will be applied carefully and transparently, based on clear methodological rules, which take into account the diversity of business models in logistics and above all ensure the achievement of the stated goal, removing the risk of collateral effects, it could correct a real imbalance on the market. If not, it risks becoming an example of hasty regulation, generating blockages, additional costs for the business environment and consumers, but also an unwanted impact on the Romanian economy. The future of this tax and its impact now depends on the decisions to come and how the authorities choose to clarify and adapt the legislative framework.
Article supported by PwC Romania
