Is Romania’s shift in approach going to pave the way for other EU Member States to use E Invoicing/e-reporting as an informative tool?

As EU tax administrations advance their digitalisation agendas, Romania’s recent repositioning of its e‑VAT system marks a notable change. Romanian authorities have shifted emphasis from treating digital reporting as a mechanism for sanctioning and enforcement toward embracing it as an informative, analytical, and supportive tool.  This transformation raises an important question:  Is it one that could influence how other Member States design and deploy their own e‑invoicing/ e-reporting based frameworks?

A significant Romanian policy reversal

Romania’s e‑VAT system was initially conceived as a strong compliance driver particularly given that information was aggregated from different sources (e-invoicing, e-reporting, e-transport etc..) resulting in prefilled VAT returns.  Taxpayers were required to justify discrepancies identified through pre‑filled VAT returns and failure to respond triggered substantial fines and increased the likelihood of audits or delayed VAT refunds.

Beginning in 2026, the following changes have been implemented:

• Removal of the obligation to respond to e‑VAT compliance notifications.
• Removal of related sanctions, including fines up to RON 10,000.
• De-categorisation of failure to respond from risk scoring and audit profiling.

These measures acknowledge both the administrative burden placed on taxpayers and the limits of the tax authority’s capacity to process large volumes of responses.

Despite the softened compliance requirements, the Romanian e‑VAT infrastructure remains active and analytically powerful. Taxpayers will continue to receive:

• Pre-filled VAT returns (Form D300) based on cross‑checked data from e‑Invoice, e-reporting and other digital sources.
• Informative notifications in cases of material discrepancies (above 20% and RON 5,000).

The crucial distinction here is that the notifications no longer create legal consequences. They serve as early alerts that may help taxpayers identify potentially overlooked transactions or data inconsistencies and support them in complying with their VAT obligations.

An important point is that the only legally binding document remains the VAT return submitted by the taxpayer and the prefilled VAT return does not constitute same. (This of course raises a different question in terms of the reliability and accuracy of prefilled VAT returns across all member states)

However, Romania is in essence evolving toward a cooperative compliance model, where digital reporting enhances transparency and accuracy without imposing automatic penalties.

One must not mistake this as a lenient approach if taxpayers are not compliant with their VAT obligations. Taxpayers still need to get data right first time as this data will still be heavily analysed and Romanian tax authorities will use such data to perform risk-based audits and strengthen their audit capabilities.

Could Romania’s model influence other EU Member States?

Several factors could make this “informative-first” approach appealing to other Member States:

1. Administrative feasibility

Authorities across Europe face similar resource constraints. Romania’s decision implicitly recognises that massive volumes of discrepancy justifications are difficult to process meaningfully. Other administrations may see value in focusing on data analytics to support risk-based audits rather than mandatory taxpayer explanations on an on-going basis.

2. Encouraging voluntary compliance

Shifting from sanction driven interactions to supportive digital tools may improve taxpayer behaviour more sustainably. An informative system fosters trust and reduces resistance often associated with heavy-handed enforcement.

3. Balancing digitalisation with proportionality

Policymakers must ensure that digital compliance regimes do not impose disproportionate burdens. Romania’s model demonstrates a transition that other Member States might adopt to avoid over regulation while still strengthening their audit capabilities.

Romania’s shift does not necessarily represent a withdrawal from digitalisation; it may instead reflect a maturing approach. By framing e‑invoicing data as a resource for insight rather than immediate enforcement, authorities can build more effective, targeted, and risk‑based audit strategies.

Conclusion

Romania’s 2026 reform represents more than a technical adjustment; it signals a rational shift in how digital tax systems are conceptualised. By transforming e‑invoicing/e-reporting into an informative instrument rather than a coercive one, Romania may be setting a precedent for a more balanced EU‑wide approach to digital reporting.

Whether other Member States adopt similar models remains to be seen, but Romania’s recalibration offers a timely and thought-provoking contribution to Europe’s evolving digital tax landscape.

Taxpayers must however remain diligent and ensure that robust systems and controls are in place to determine that the correct VAT treatment is applied, and correct data is transmitted electronically to the tax administration. Even if Romania is softening its approach and treating e‑VAT notifications as informative, the underlying transactional data will still be used to identify inconsistencies or inaccuracies, and regardless of when those discrepancies are discovered, the risk of VAT assessments, interest, and penalties remains unchanged.