If your group runs intra-group transactions with a Romanian entity, those flows must — from 2026 — be documented in a transfer-pricing file. Large taxpayers file it annually; the rest prepare it on request. The rules now sit in a new instrument, OPANAF 828/2026 (the Romanian transfer-pricing file order), in force since 2 July 2026.
A transfer price is the price at which one company in a group sells goods, provides services, grants loans or licenses intangibles to another company in the same group. Because the parties are not independent, that price does not form on a real market but is set internally — and, through it, profit can be shifted quietly from a high-tax jurisdiction to a low-tax one. Hence the state's interest.
The legal antidote is the arm's length principle. The domestic basis is article 11 of the Romanian Fiscal Code, which requires transactions between related parties to produce the same tax result as if they had been concluded between independent companies, and which refers expressly to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines — applicable in Romania as a recognised reference standard. The transfer-pricing file, dosarul prețurilor de transfer (the transfer-pricing documentation file), is the document through which the taxpayer demonstrates that it observed this principle.
The rules apply only between related parties. The definition in article 7 of the Fiscal Code rests on two ideas: participation and control. Related parties include, among others:
Spouses or relatives up to and including the third degree.
Where the individual holds, directly or indirectly, at least 25% of the shares or voting rights, or exercises effective control.
Where one holds in the other, directly or indirectly, at least 25% of the shares or voting rights, or controls it effectively.
Where a third party holds in both, directly or indirectly, at least 25% of the shares or voting rights.
"Effective control" is not reducible to a percentage: it may follow from the decision-making capacity of management, from significant transactions with entities controlled by the same person, or from contracts and mandates that attest to the exercise of control. The practical consequence: one company may be related to another even without a 25% holding, if there is control in fact between them. Testing the relationship is therefore the first step of any transfer-pricing assessment — including for intra-group services and management fees.
Not every company with related-party transactions prepares a file every year. The order keeps the logic of two taxpayer categories but tightens the rules for the large ones.
Large taxpayers that exceed the materiality thresholds now have an obligation to prepare the file annually and file it electronically, through the SPV (the taxpayer's electronic filing account with ANAF), under the signature of the legal representative. Until now the file was presented only on request; for transactions from 2026 onward, it becomes an annual filing, like a return.
Other taxpayers have no annual obligation to prepare and file. They prepare the file only at the request of the tax authority, in an audit, if their transactions with affiliates exceed the thresholds for their category. Below the thresholds, in principle there is no file obligation — but the tax authority may, by way of exception, request it on a risk-analysis basis.
The most important change of mechanism is the way the test is applied. Unlike the past, when the value of all transactions with all affiliates was aggregated, the new order tests the thresholds individually, for each category of transaction and for each related party separately (at the National Bank of Romania exchange rate on the last day of the fiscal year, excluding VAT). The annual thresholds for large taxpayers are, by category:
Services provided or received — reduced from EUR 250,000 under the old order, the signal of much stricter documentation on the intra-group services front.
Interest and economically equivalent costs on loans with affiliates.
Intangible assets, including royalties for trademarks, patents and know-how.
Transactions in tangible assets — goods, equipment, merchandise.
For small and medium taxpayers the thresholds are significantly lower on each category, the file remaining due only on request. The exact per-category values are read on the official text published in the Official Gazette; the mechanism to remember, however, is clear and independent of the figure: each category has its own threshold, and the breach is tested for each affiliate separately.
Describes the group as a whole — the ownership and organisational structure, the business, the intangibles, the financing policy, the intra-group arrangements — in line with Annex I to Chapter V of the OECD Guidelines.
Describes the Romanian entity and its transactions with affiliates: the functional analysis (functions, assets, risks), the choice and justification of the pricing method, and the comparability study that determines the arm's length range.
OPANAF 828/2026 substantially expands the contents: a more detailed functional analysis (organisational chart, description of each department, identification of strategic and operational management positions, classification of the entity within a limited-risk or full-risk profile), documentation of business restructurings, express treatment of costs re-invoiced without a mark-up, and reasoning for the selection of the method and the tested party — with an independent auditor's report, if the tested party is not the very taxpayer preparing the file. The comparability study must be presented in editable Excel format as well, with the search strategy, the accepted and rejected comparables and the calculation of the range.
The functional profile invoked must be supported by real economic substance — actual people, decisions and risks within the entity; otherwise, the analysis falls at the first check.
Note — an "incomplete" file equals a file not presented. The absence of the description of transactions, of the contractual documentation, of the functional analysis, of the justification of the method, of the comparability study or of the financial data for calculating the indicators opens the door directly to an estimation of the transfer prices by the tax authority — and, on estimation, the result is set at the central tendency of the market, usually the median of the range. A file filed as a formality but with weak benchmarking does not protect you; it exposes you.
The file is filed through the SPV within 30 working days of the statutory deadline for the annual corporate income tax return.
If the large taxpayer did not file the file through the SPV and it is requested in an audit, the presentation deadline is short — a maximum of 5 working days from the request.
They present the file at the tax authority's request, within 30–60 working days of the communication, with a single reasoned extension of at most 30 working days.
During the period granted for preparing the file, the audit may be suspended, under the conditions of the Fiscal Procedure Code.
A terminological detail with practical effect: the order replaces, in the text, "tax inspection" with "tax control", extending the possibility of requesting the file beyond the classic inspection, to any form of control.
For large taxpayers — a new obligation, not merely presentation on request.
Not on the value aggregated across all affiliates — some transactions fall in, others fall out.
For large taxpayers, the services threshold drops from EUR 250,000 to EUR 100,000.
And linked directly to the estimation of transfer prices.
Functional analysis, comparability in Excel format, geographic hierarchy of comparables, a minimum of three fiscal years for multi-year analyses, and a standardised reporting annex.
With express treatment of business restructurings and permanent establishments.
The absence of the file is not a mere formal irregularity. It shifts the initiative entirely to the tax authority: without the taxpayer's documentation, ANAF (the Romanian tax authority) can estimate the transfer prices, choosing the method and the comparables itself, with the result usually set at the median. Reconstructing a solid file afterwards, in the administrative appeal or in court, is possible, but far harder and more costly than preparing it on time. The concrete mechanism of estimation in the absence of the file and its consequences are treated separately, alongside adjustment to the median and the large amounts and what to do when an audit ends with a very large amount to pay.
The rules on the file apply to transactions carried out from 1 January 2026. The procedural provisions — those on the conduct of audits — apply to procedures initiated after 1 January 2027; audits started earlier remain, as a rule, under the old framework. In practice: for fiscal year 2026 a file is prepared under the new content rules, while the new audit procedures take full effect from 2027. Whoever plans documentation now is already working to the new standard.
Not only multinationals. The obligation concerns any taxpayer with significant related-party transactions — including a small Romanian company within a larger group, or two Romanian companies held by the same shareholders that invoice each other for services or grant each other loans. Because the new order tests the thresholds per transaction and per affiliate, an otherwise modest company may have a file obligation on a single category. Underestimating this — "we are too small for transfer pricing to matter" — is one of the most frequent vulnerabilities of small companies in large groups.
Before any file, do the mapping: list all related parties (on the art. 7 criteria) and all transactions with them, grouped by category — services, financing, intangibles, tangibles. Then test, transaction by transaction and affiliate by affiliate, whether the thresholds applicable to your category are exceeded. The result tells you whether you have an annual obligation, an obligation on request, or only a residual risk. Only after this diagnosis does investment in benchmarking and the rest of the file make sense. A timely preventive tax audit costs far less than an adjustment to the median discovered at audit — a position that a transfer-pricing expert report can also support.
It depends on their value by category and on your taxpayer status. If you are a small or medium taxpayer and exceed the threshold on one category (for example, services), the file is prepared at the tax authority's request; if you exceed no threshold, in principle there is no obligation, but ANAF may request the documentation by way of exception, on a risk analysis. Mapping the transactions and testing the thresholds per affiliate is the mandatory step.
That you no longer add everything together. For each category (services, financing, intangibles, tangibles) and for each related party separately, you test whether the annual value exceeds the threshold. A company may exceed the services threshold with one affiliate and stay below on other categories or with other affiliates. The consequence: some transactions fall within the documentation obligation, others do not.
The tax authority may estimate the transfer prices, using its own method and comparables, with the result usually at the median. You lose control of the analysis, and the resulting adjustment — plus interest and penalties — can be substantial. Later reconstruction through an expert is possible, but far more difficult than a file prepared on time.
Not for the transactions and periods covered by a valid APA issued by ANAF: for those the file is neither prepared nor requested. This is one of the reasons groups with large, recurring flows choose an advance pricing agreement — it replaces the uncertainty of annual documentation with administrative certainty.
This article is strictly informational and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Individual situations must be analysed on their specific facts. Legislative position reflected: 18 July 2026.
Deadlines run from the moment of communication. A first discussion clarifies what is being alleged, what you must justify and how the defence is built — before an estimation becomes an assessment decision.