ANALYSIS "The microenterprise, from a local tax haven in a niche regime": how the line shifts between real microenterprises and SMEs

The government simultaneously changes the definition and tax regime of micro-enterprises: the income ceiling decreases, the eligibility conditions are tightened, but the tax becomes unique and lower in percentage.

Key changes

Eligibility ceiling: annual revenues for micro-enterprises decrease from 250,000 euros to 100,000 euros, converted at the exchange rate on December 31, 2025.

Tax rate: the 3% tax on micro-enterprise income is eliminated, leaving a single rate of 1% on turnover for all micro-enterprises under 100,000 euros.

Access/maintenance rules:

firm with revenues below 100,000 euros as of 31.12.2025 and not classified in excluded fields;

at least one employee (or a paid mandate/administration contract at least at the level of the minimum wage), with strict rules for suspensions.

Limitation on the number of micro-enterprises owned: associates who directly/indirectly hold over 25% of the capital or votes must establish a single company that remains a micro-enterprise; the others will switch to profit tax.

Exit procedures: obligation to notify ANAF within 15 days of exceeding the ceiling, changing the object of activity in an excluded field, or exceeding the 25% threshold in multiple firms.

Other compliance requirements:

declaring the micro option by March 31, 2026;

mandatory RO e-Invoice and shorter deadlines for sending invoices (5 working days);

correlations with the new minimum share capital rules for LLCs with turnover over 400,000 lei.

A simple example: a service company with 80,000 euros in turnover, one employee at minimum wage, and shareholders who do not control other micros can apply a 1% income tax in 2026; over 100,000 euros or if the associate controls another micro, the company will exit the regime.

Who wins and who loses

Advantages

Small micro-enterprises, with high margins and turnover below 60,000–80,000 euros

Switch to a unique tax of 1% on income, which for low-cost activities (IT, consulting, marketing) remains very competitive compared to 16% profit tax.

Tax-disciplined firms with a simple structure

Those that already had one employee, use e-Invoice, and do not operate a "bunch" of micros for tax optimization will feel fewer adjustment costs and reduced uncertainty.

The state budget and tax administration

Lowering the ceiling and restricting the number of micros per beneficiary reduce the possibility of artificial fragmentation of businesses and increase the profit tax base, while the unique rate simplifies administration.

Disadvantages

Firms close to the old ceiling of 250,000 euros

The segment of 100,000–250,000 euros loses the micro regime and switches to a 16% profit tax, with more complex reporting obligations; these are firms with several dozen employees, often in trade or light manufacturing.

Entrepreneurs who used multiple micros for optimization

Limiting to a single micro for shareholders with over 25% in multiple firms cuts the "one LLC per family member" scheme, increasing the tax bill for informal groups of firms.

Businesses with low margins (trade, HoReCa, distribution)

For them, the transition from 3% to 1% is a relief, but the lowered ceiling and the risk of exceeding it increase tax volatility; once switched to profit tax, the cash flow impact can be significant.

Fast-growing start-ups

Benefit from a very friendly regime in the first years, but can quickly exceed the 100,000 euro ceiling and switch to a more burdensome regime exactly at the scaling phase.

How the measures were received

Business environment:

SME employers and tax consultants welcome the elimination of the 3% rate and the unification of the regime to 1%, but harshly criticize the reduction of the ceiling to 100,000 euros and the limitation to a single micro per taxpayer, seen as restrictive measures meant to cover the budget deficit.

Entrepreneur associations demand a longer transition period and clarifications regarding the regime change during the year (the moment of switching to profit, recalculations, contract adjustments).

Government and ANAF:

The official message is "simplification and tax equity": a single rate, a lower threshold, combating fragmentation and aggressive optimization, plus consolidating revenues to the budget.

The authorities emphasize that the measures come with digitalization (RO e-Invoice, standardized reporting), which should reduce bureaucracy in the long term, although in the short term it increases the compliance burden.

Public space and economic press:

Analyses speak of a "micro-reform with two faces": on one hand, a lower, clearer, and predictable tax; on the other hand, a micro regime reserved for a narrower segment of companies, especially real micros, not "small disguised corporations".

Predictable effects

In the short term

Increase in budget revenue from reclassifying firms over 100,000 euros to profit tax and from restricting the "lanes" of micros.

Increased administrative burden for accountants and entrepreneurs: recalculations, changing the tax vector, adapting systems to the new ceiling and e-Invoice rules.

Likely wave of restructurings: mergers between micros controlled by the same associates, liquidations of "reserve" firms, reorientation towards PFA/II in certain service sectors.

In the medium and long term

Reconfiguration of the micro-enterprise segment

Analysts see a polarization: very small micros, oriented towards flexibility and freelancing, remain in the 1% regime; firms that grow beyond 100,000 euros are pushed to adopt governance and reporting like a "normal firm" (profit tax, higher capitalization, transparency).

Impact on investments

The 1% income tax remains attractive for scalable businesses with intangible assets, but for capital-intensive investments (production, logistics) switching to profit can become a discouraging factor if not correlated with aid schemes or accelerated depreciation.

Effects on the economy

Limiting micros per beneficiary and tightening employee and e-Invoice rules should reduce "optimization" and evasion through micros, but there is a risk that some activity may migrate to the non-fiscalized area if administration becomes too burdensome.

Some economists emphasize that the measures fit into a broader trend of "tightening the screw" after years in which the micro regime was used as an internal fiscal dumping tool, generating distortions between micros and profit tax-paying companies.

Analysis conducted with the support of the NewsVibe platform and Perplexity