Romania resets its transfer pricing rulebook: why the new framework matters

In a matter of weeks, the Romanian National Authority for Fiscal Administration (NAFA) has revised three key pillars of the local transfer pricing framework. Order 660/2026 on mutual agreement procedures (MAPs) was published on June 16 2026, followed on July 2 2026 by Order 828/2026 on transfer pricing documentation and Order 827/2026 on advance pricing agreements (APAs). Taken together, these measures signal a clear shift from retrospective, paper-based compliance to a more structured, data-driven, and internationally aligned transfer pricing environment.

The timing of these reforms is also significant in the context of Romania’s prospective accession to the OECD. As Romania advances through the accession process, closer alignment with OECD standards on tax transparency, dispute prevention, and dispute resolution is becoming increasingly important. The recent transfer pricing measures should therefore be viewed not only as domestic compliance updates but as part of a wider effort to strengthen Romania’s tax administration framework and demonstrate convergence with international best practices.

The reform comes at a time when Romania’s tax administration is visibly accelerating its shift towards risk-based, data-driven enforcement. NAFA’s 2025 Performance Report highlights the growing use of digital tools such as e-Factura, SAF-T, e-Transport, and RO e-TVA to better understand taxpayers’ operations, identify tax-related risks, and direct control actions more efficiently. The same report shows that the number of tax inspections and documentary audits increased by 134.14% compared with 2020, while these actions resulted in additional amounts established of approximately RON 4.35 billion (€830 million) during 2025 and a reduction of tax losses by RON 1.07 billion.

Against this backdrop, the new rules confirm a more assertive enforcement approach, built around mandatory electronic filings, more detailed evidentiary requirements, and the possibility for the tax authorities to estimate transfer prices where the transfer pricing documentation provided is considered incomplete.

This direction is consistent with a broader international trend. In a post-BEPS and pillar two environment, tax administrations increasingly expect taxpayers to demonstrate not only that transfer pricing policies are documented but also that they are supported by reliable data, implemented consistently, and aligned with the group’s actual value creation model.

One of the most significant changes is the mandatory annual submission of the transfer pricing file by large taxpayers through the Private Virtual Space (SPV), within 30 working days from the statutory deadline for filing the annual corporate income tax return. If the file is not submitted electronically within this deadline, it must be provided within only five working days upon request from the tax authorities.

This substantially changes the practical role of the transfer pricing file. Documentation can no longer be treated as a year-end compliance exercise prepared after the fact. Instead, taxpayers will need to integrate transfer pricing data into their ERP systems, closing procedures, and tax reporting processes, ensuring that intercompany transactions and year-end adjustments can be identified, reconciled, and supported in a timely manner.

The revised documentation rules also expand the level of detail expected from taxpayers. Materiality thresholds are recalibrated and are now applied per transaction category and per counterparty, rather than being aggregated across all related parties.

At the same time, taxpayers are expected to provide more detailed support for the functional profile of the tested entity, the selection of the tested party, the composition of the cost base, and the economic rationale of the applied transfer pricing method. Benchmarking analyses must also be provided in a more transparent format, including the search strategy and the accepted and rejected comparables.

The introduction of a standardised annex reinforces this direction by requiring structured disclosure of intercompany transactions, annual values, and year-end transfer pricing adjustments. The overall message is clear: formal compliance will no longer be sufficient. Taxpayers will need to demonstrate substance, consistency, and audit-ready evidence.

Order 827/2026 modernises the APA framework and confirms the possibility to request rollback coverage for up to five prior closed fiscal years, provided that the relevant facts and circumstances remain similar. This brings Romania closer to international practice, where APAs are increasingly used as proactive tools for managing tax certainty.

For multinational groups, this development may be particularly relevant for strategic or high-value transactions, recurring business models, restructurings, and arrangements that could otherwise generate controversy in future audits. In the context of pillar two, where predictability of jurisdictional effective tax rates becomes increasingly important, APAs may play a more prominent role in the group’s broader tax risk management strategy.

NAFA’s 2025 Performance Report also indicates growing practical experience with APAs: six APAs were concluded in 2025, including one bilateral APA and five unilateral APAs, while five bilateral APAs and one unilateral APA were in draft form. This suggests that APAs are becoming a more operationally relevant route for managing transfer pricing certainty in Romania. Importantly, it also reflects NAFA’s declared openness towards the APA programme, with the expectation that it will become more efficient and accessible in the near future.

Order 660/2026 completes the picture. MAP requests under double tax treaties or the EU Arbitration Convention can now be filed electronically via SPV, in both Romanian and English, within a three-year window, with clear timelines for information exchanges. Crucially, the MAP outcome prevails over prior tax administrative acts and is implemented irrespective of statutory limitation periods, bringing Romania closer to the OECD BEPS Action 14 minimum standard and complementing the EU Dispute Resolution Directive route.

This is also consistent with the practical progress reported by NAFA in 2025. According to its 2025 Performance Report, following Romania's OECD accession-related assessments and the recommendations of the OECD Forum on Tax Administration’s MAP Forum, the Romanian competent authority transmitted 88 position papers to partner jurisdictions, held 21 meetings with foreign competent authorities to discuss pending cases, and finalised 45 MAP cases, including 34 cases concerning the attribution or allocation of profits. These developments suggest that Romania is not only updating the legal framework but, importantly, also building administrative capacity to handle cross-border transfer pricing disputes more actively.

Groups with Romanian operations should use this reform as an opportunity to reassess their transfer pricing operating model. Priority actions should include preparing SPV-ready filing processes, upgrading systems and data flows to capture transaction-level information, reassessing intercompany policies and functional profiles, and ensuring that year-end adjustments are properly documented and reconciled.

Businesses should also consider whether an APA, potentially including rollback coverage, could provide greater certainty for strategic transactions. At the same time, transfer pricing documentation should be prepared with potential MAP proceedings in mind, particularly where cross-border adjustments may give rise to double taxation.

Preparation is no longer only a compliance matter. Under the new framework, it becomes a key component of tax risk management, audit readiness, and global tax governance.

In this environment, taxpayers that can demonstrate substance, consistency, and reliable data will be better positioned to manage audits, prevent disputes, and navigate Romania’s increasingly OECD-aligned tax landscape.