If your group runs large, recurring intra-group flows through a Romanian entity, one question hangs over every financial year: will the next audit accept the method in the file, or rebuild the range and adjust the margin to the median? For transactions large and repetitive enough, that recurring uncertainty can be replaced with an administrative certainty agreed in advance with ANAF — the advance pricing agreement (APA). It is not for every transaction, and above all not for emergencies. But where it fits, it turns a multi-million adjustment risk into a matter settled beforehand. And since July 2026, its framework has been rewritten.
The advance pricing agreement is the administrative act by which ANAF establishes, at the taxpayer's request and before the transactions take place, the conditions and manner of determining transfer prices for future transactions with related parties. It is governed, alongside the advance individual tax ruling, by Article 52 of the Tax Procedure Code.
The founding idea is simple: instead of justifying the method ex post, in a file the audit can challenge, the taxpayer obtains ex ante confirmation of the method from the administration. The legal effect is essential. Once issued and complied with exactly, the agreement is binding on and enforceable against the tax authority: for the period of validity and for the covered transactions, ANAF can no longer re-set the transfer prices and can no longer issue an adjustment.
In practice, the transaction covered by an APA leaves the audit's risk zone. The condition is that the facts and the economic premises — the so-called "critical assumptions" — remain those on which the agreement was concluded; if these change significantly, the agreement may be amended or lose its effects.
On 2 July 2026, in Official Gazette No. 543, OPANAF No. 827/2026 was published, rewriting the procedure for issuing and amending advance pricing agreements and aligning it with the OECD standards. The order is the "prospective" counterpart of OPANAF No. 828/2026 (which, on the same day, rewrote the rules of the transfer-pricing file and the adjustment/estimation procedure). The new APA rules apply to requests filed from the date of publication.
The substantive novelty is the roll-back mechanism: the agreement can also be applied to fiscal periods prior to the request, for up to five years, under certain conditions — in essence, if in those years the transactions were carried out under conditions similar to those in the agreement. The practical consequence is remarkable: the same method confirmed for the future can "cover" the recent years retroactively, closing past exposure too — including years that would otherwise have remained open to an audit. For a group entering an APA precisely because it senses an audit approaching, the roll-back is often the decisive argument.
The choice of type turns on a single practical criterion: do you want certainty only in Romania, or the elimination of double taxation as well?
Issued by ANAF alone, it confirms the method only in relation to the Romanian tax authority. It protects you from an adjustment in Romania, but does not defend you if the state of the other related party challenges the price and taxes the difference there. Faster and cheaper, but it leaves the double-taxation risk open.
Issued jointly by ANAF and the tax authority of the other party's state, through the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). Both states accept the same method, so double taxation is eliminated from the outset. It can be concluded only with parties from states with which Romania has a double-taxation treaty.
The same logic, extended to several states, for structures with related parties in several jurisdictions.
A unilateral agreement is not a complete "shield". If the transaction is cross-border and the partner's state considers the price confirmed by ANAF unfavourable to its own budget, it may adjust on its side — and the same profit ends up taxed twice. For significant cross-border flows, real protection comes from a bilateral or multilateral agreement, which binds both administrations and connects to the double-taxation treaty. The higher cost and duration are, as a rule, the correct price of effective certainty.
Before filing the request, the taxpayer can ask in writing for a prior discussion, to establish whether the future situation lends itself to an agreement and on what conditions.
The documentation resembles the transfer-pricing file, but is prospective: it describes the future transactions, the functional analysis, the proposed method, the benchmarking study and the critical assumptions.
ANAF requests clarifications and, for a bilateral/multilateral agreement, enters into dialogue with the foreign authority through MAP. The final method is the result of a negotiation, not a mere approval.
The agreement sets the method, the manner of application, the covered period and the critical assumptions, for a limited validity period fixed at issuance according to the nature of the transactions.
During the agreement, the taxpayer files an annual report on compliance with the terms and conditions — proof that reality remained within the agreed parameters.
An issuance fee provided by Article 52 of the Tax Procedure Code, differentiated by category of taxpayer, plus the advisory cost of preparing the documentation — the decision is taken on an honest cost-benefit analysis.
This is why an APA is not a crisis solution: issuance is measured not in weeks but in many months, all the more so in the bilateral version, where the dialogue between administrations comes in. The statutory time limits for resolution are significantly longer than those of an ordinary tax request, and in practice the real duration tends to exceed them. The operational conclusion is a single one: an APA is planned in advance, ideally before launching a structure or a restructuring, not after the audit order has arrived.
The cost has two components. The first is the issuance fee, provided by Article 52 of the Tax Procedure Code, differentiated by category of taxpayer: lower for the small categories, but rising to the large-taxpayer level if the consolidated value of the covered transactions exceeds a statutory threshold, or if during the agreement the taxpayer is classified as a large taxpayer; non-payment of the fee renders the agreement invalid. The second component, often larger, is the advisory work — preparing the prospective documentation, the benchmarking study built by the transfer-pricing expert, the negotiation with ANAF and, for a bilateral agreement, coordination with the adviser in the other state.
Annual flows of services, royalties or intra-group financing, where a margin adjustment would multiply across several years.
For budgeting, for group reporting or for peace of mind in the relationship with the audit.
When the functions-and-risks model changes and uncertainty about the new transfer price is at its highest.
A situation in which the roll-back can close the recent years too, alongside the future.
It is not, as a rule, worth it for small, occasional transactions with low adjustment risk, where the fee and advisory cost exceed the benefit. For such cases, a well-prepared transfer-pricing file offers protection proportionate to the stake. The effect on audits is the most concrete benefit: a transaction covered by a valid and complied-with agreement is not adjusted. The audit only checks whether the facts remained consistent with the agreement; it does not reopen the debate on method, comparables or range — a decisive advantage also in defending the group's position at audit. The drawbacks, however, must be accepted: full transparency towards ANAF, the commitment to comply with the method and to report annually, and the time to obtain it.
In principle, the agreement concerns future transactions. Since 2026, OPANAF 827/2026 has introduced a roll-back mechanism, which allows the confirmed method to be applied to prior fiscal periods too, for up to five years, if in those years the transactions were carried out under similar conditions. A single agreement can close both future and recent exposure.
Yes. A unilateral agreement confirms the method only in the relationship with ANAF. If the state of the related party adjusts the price, double taxation arises, and the remedy remains the mutual agreement procedure. For significant cross-border flows, a bilateral or multilateral agreement — which binds both administrations — is the option that offers effective protection.
An APA is not a solution for emergencies. Issuance takes many months, and in the bilateral version it also depends on the foreign authority. If the audit order has already arrived, the ground shifts to the defence at audit and to the transfer-pricing file, not to the APA.
Rarely. The issuance fee and the cost of the prospective documentation make economic sense only when the adjustment risk they neutralise is comparable — for large, recurring transactions. For modest volumes, a sound file, prepared in good time, offers protection proportionate to the stake, at a far lower cost.
Informational material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be analysed on their specific facts.
Time limits run from the moment of communication. An initial discussion clarifies what is being alleged, what you must justify and how the defence is built — before an estimate becomes a tax assessment.