Romania: New construction tax in Romania
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Romania: New construction tax in Romania


Nina Sava

This month the Romanian Government has approved an Emergency Government Ordinance for the introduction of a new tax as of January 1 2014. The so-called construction tax payable to the state budget (distinct from the existing building tax which is income for the local budgets) stems from the commitment the government has made towards the IMF to increase the efficiency of the Romanian fiscal system and to ensure financial stability of the national economy, in other words to increase tax revenue. Moreover, in line with the objectives of the governing programme to extend the "taxable base", the Romanian government is now committed to tax what has not been taxed before. Romania traditionally subjects buildings to tax (the level of building tax for legal persons is maximum 1.5% of the gross accounting value of the asset, or in the range of 10-40% in case of buildings which have not been revalued). Construction tax, however, is targeted at constructions other than buildings and which consequently are not subject to building tax. Constructions subject to the new tax include inter alia power plants, oil & gas wells, drilling and production platforms, mine shafts, railway/road/telecommunications infrastructure, constructions for transport of electricity and many more. In practice, the list may be virtually open, as in principle any construction not subject to building tax should be subject to construction tax.

Construction tax is to be due on an annual basis and has been set at 1.5% of the accounting value of qualifying constructions (as of December 31 of the previous year), less the value of buildings/works for which the building tax is due.

The assessment whether a certain construction (larger category which includes the buildings sub-category) was subject to building tax or not was already a conundrum even for the most experienced tax experts. Given that the construction tax is now confirmed, the analysis would be far more complex and the uncertainty considerably higher for the ordinary taxpayer. In the absence of clear and comprehensive application norms, this tax would leave room for debate, alternative interpretations and tax controversy or litigation.

A simple example could be wind turbines which, as most agree, are not buildings; hence they should not be subject to building tax. However, this has not stopped some local tax authorities from levying building tax on (parts of) wind turbines. A new question arises now along with the new tax: Should wind turbines be subject to construction tax or not? As this type of construction is not specifically mentioned in the list of qualifying constructions, one may be prompted to conclude that the answer is "no". However, why would a hydro, thermal or nuclear power plant be subject to construction tax, whereas a wind turbine should not? If this is an easy scenario, how about solar panels?

Numerous questions would be raised before and after the Emergency Government Ordinance is enforced. However, in tax matters, answers rarely matter for the ordinary tax inspector unless they are binding and provided in writing by the relevant tax authorities. In our view, this new tax should, or at least may, increase taxpayers' interest in advanced tax rulings. For those with numerous or high value constructions, the availability of a binding ruling would be of the utmost importance, helping management estimate and control this fairly costly tax, its impact on EBITDA and ROA as well as reducing the scope for undesirable tax litigation.

Nina Sava (


Tel: +40 21 402 4000


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Australian businessman Gordon Merchant used EY’s advice to offset an A$85 million capital gain, according to the Federal Court
Griggs has been drafted in ahead of schedule as the incumbent Tim Ryan departs for Citigroup; while the Netherlands plans to scrap a 15% share buyback tax
Authorities must ensure that Russian firms do not use transfer pricing schemes to increase profits made from oil sold in different markets, advocacy organisations have argued
Fallet, a partner at law firm Mauger Muniz Advogados in Brazil, tells ITR about his passion for tax law, the leaders who inspired him, and what makes tax cool
The former chief operating officer will assume the role on July 1
Ahead of next week's Indirect Tax Forum in London, ITR spoke with Christian Van Der Valk of Sovos about how different governments and companies are embracing e-invoicing
Konrad Jeczewski has alleged he was threatened with negative reviews before being made redundant by EY Australia
The suggestion was welcomed by Skadden’s European tax head at a special event on space and tax
A majority of clients – particularly high-earning businesses – want advisers with demonstrable social credentials, according to a survey of more than 28,000 corporate counsel
Gift this article