Romania: Romanian individual tax residency position

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Romania: Romanian individual tax residency position

intl-updates-small.jpg

The enactment of the Romanian Fiscal Code in January 2016 brought significant changes to an individual's tax residency position. For the first ever time, the Romanian legal framework provides for a 'split year' residency.

sofianu.jpg
tigai.jpg

Claudia Sofianu

Inga Tigai

More specifically, individuals can acquire/cease their Romanian tax residency at a certain moment during the fiscal year, when the relevant conditions are met. In the past (up to December 2015), a full year residency was in place and individuals could not split their position during the fiscal year.

In terms of tax liabilities, the new provisions target an individual's worldwide income at a more accelerated pace than before. Previously, income was not subject to Romanian taxation in the year the individual shifted their tax residency to Romania. So, it seems that the change intends to narrow the benefits granted to taxpayers when considering their tax residency.

Although the changes in the legislation are significant, the practice and procedures in respect of assessing an individual's tax residency position are mostly the same as before and could still lead to some odd situations.

As in the past, the Romanian tax residency position is assessed based on a tax residency questionnaire (TRQ) submitted on the individual's arrival to/departure from Romania.

Unclear areas

The new rules in the Fiscal Code are the result of having the tax residency position determined based on domestic conditions (the "inglorious" 183-days rule and the individual's vital interests) rather than the applicable treaty for the avoidance of double taxation, if applicable. Thus, by not employing a tie-breaker rule, Romanian authorities may potentially keep the individuals as tax residents in Romania even years after they shift their tax residency position abroad.

In particular, this might be the case for Romanian citizens travelling abroad for more than 183 days, who are required to clarify their tax residency position upon leaving the Romanian territory. In such cases, the burden proof of deregistration stays with the individual who should produce a tax residency certificate from the other state. Still, more inconveniences could be encountered if the authorities decide that deregistration is applicable only upon receiving the tax residency certificate from the other state and not from the actual moment when the event triggering the tax residency shift occurred. The bottom line is that when handling the matter with the authorities, the individuals should consider proper supporting documentation for the TRQ and making the applications in advance, as it is common that the tax residency notifications are issued with significant delays.

Another important procedural aspect concerns the shift of an individual's centre of vital interest to Romania. They can have their tax residency position assessed by Romanian authorities only after the 183-days term is completed. However, if the authorities consider the social and economic ties as being the connecting factor to Romania (as the case may be), the individual could fail to observe their tax liabilities for the first year of residence. Therefore, the delays in the assessment of the individual's tax residency position could then trigger penalties for late tax reporting and payment.

To conclude, since tax residency is assessed by the tax office where the individual resides, most recent cases show that the authorities' approach on tax residency is not consistent and issues are only resolved on a case-by-case basis. Considering that the practice on a split tax residency is still in its infancy, those affected by the new rules should undertake the assessment of their tax residency even before the due date to ensure they have more opportunities to clarify, by means of the TRQ, their position before any tax liabilities arise.

Claudia Sofianu (claudia.sofianu@ro.ey.com) and Inga Tigai (inga.tigai@ro.ey.com)

EY, People Advisory Services

Website: www.ey.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The proposed Block TP Assessment could provide taxpayers with long-term arm’s-length price certainty and reduce admin headaches, Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co writes
India’s budget changes goods and services tax rules; UK private school VAT challenge fast-tracked
It is understood that the US has vowed to oppose any outcome from talks taking place at the UN
It’s the second year in a row that RSM’s tax business has posted fee income growth above 10%
Recent guidance from the Indian tax authorities should provide confidence for investors, says Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co
Grant Wardell-Johnson also suggests there could be solutions to the friction between the US and the OECD when it comes to pillar two
The president had so far avoided announcing tariffs on the US’s neighbours despite previous threats
The firm brought in three managing directors from EY and Deloitte in Europe; in other news, KPMG’s bid to practise law in US was delayed
One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Gift this article