In the last two years, tax changes have been more frenetic and more exotic than ever. We could say that we are in the face of a perpetual tax revolution, or rather, we are in the face of a tax revolution on an ongoing basis.
In the shadow of the highly publicized ordinance on "The tax on banks’ greed" (officially the tax on the assets of banking institutions according to Emergency Ordinance No. 114/2018 regarding the establishment of measures in the field of public investments and fiscal-budgetary measures, on amending an supplementing certain acts and the extension of some deadlines), the end of 2018 brought another surprise for the banking system, partly foreseen but with the hope that it would eventually not happen, or at least not too soon.
Once it is accepted that Regulation 2016/679 on data protection (hereafter referred to as the "Regulation" or "GDPR") is fully applicable not only to the various legal entities (including small companies with a rather reduced level of activity), but also in the case of individuals processing personal data, during their activity, the specific implications of the Regulation on healthcare activities can be raised.
Emergency Ordinance no. 88 / 02.10.2018 on amending and supplementing certain normative acts in the field of insolvency and other acts, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 840, starts with a number of reasons, circumstances and situations that the Romanian Government invokes to justify their action.
At a time when in Romania's business environment there are more than 6,000 companies with a number of approximately 64,000 employees undergoing the insolvency observation period procedure, the Government considers it opportune to take urgent measures to amend the legislation in the field, with the aim of facilitating the recovery of the difficult economic situations that these companies face.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice has received a referral for a preliminary ruling in order to resolve the following matter of law: "The provisions of art. 1473of the Tax Code may be interpreted as meaning that, although it was established by a final decision that a tax receivable cannot be claimed in the insolvency procedure governed by Law no. 85/2006 as a result of its late submission, the same receivable can be claimed by the fiscal body in the procedure for solving the VAT return application made by the debtor undergoing insolvency proceedings?".
Although May 25, 2018 - the date of effective enforcement of Regulation no. 679 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (hereinafter "the Regulation" or "GDPR") - is approaching very fast, the question "Are you ready for GDPR?" still creates confusion, in certain circumstances, regarding the new regulation on the protection of personal data brought by GDPR and its applicability.
The genesis of the Single Statement Form 212 was tumultuous. Its appearance was not the result of an organic, natural process of simplifying the process of determining taxes and duties, of declaring and collecting them, but rather one of compromise solutions to end the many hesitations and tax measures hard to understand even by professionals.
After having dealt with a problem of practical interest for companies in the December 2017 issue of our newsletter in terms of GDPR requirements, we intent to cover in this article another topic of major interest for companies: when must they assess the impact of their processing of personal data activities and, if so, how do they make this assessment?
The end of 2017 brought us a number of important changes in public procurement, following the legislator's motivation to refine and streamline the public procurement system, and to reform the ex-ante control function of the award of public procurement contracts / framework agreements, of sector contracts / framework agreements and works concession and service concession contracts.