The organization appealed to Parliament Speaker Igor Gros, calling on him to review the mechanism for the mandatory deduction of 0.5% of the amount invested in fixed assets, as provided for in the Urban Planning and Construction Code.
As Logos Press previously reported, business associations also expressed their disagreement with the new provision of the code during public consultations held by the parliamentary committee on the economy, budget, and finance.
AmCham explains that the payment reduces the country’s investment attractiveness and runs counter to the course toward economic growth and European integration. AmCham believes that when evaluating the mechanism, it is necessary to consider not only the technical aspects of its implementation but also the appropriateness of having a tax on production investments.
Romania’s Negative Experience
Romania is cited as an example, where a similar tax on special facilities was introduced and then repealed twice after it had a negative impact on investment activity and the economy.
According to AmCham, the current mechanism taxes the very act of investing, rather than the economic outcome of the project. This means that the heaviest tax burden falls on companies investing in infrastructure development, production modernization, and capacity expansion. AmCham believes this discourages investment and reduces the economy’s competitiveness.
This approach could be particularly problematic for capital-intensive sectors such as energy, infrastructure, telecommunications, manufacturing, logistics, and agriculture. The organization warns that the payment creates additional administrative costs, complicates the determination of the tax base, and increases the risk of legal disputes.
Decision to Postpone Investments
AmCham cites data from the Romanian Foreign Investors Council, according to which the introduction of a similar tax affected companies with a combined additional financial impact of more than 92 million euros. More than half of the survey respondents stated their intention to reduce or postpone investments, while one-quarter said they would pass on the additional costs to consumers through price increases.
AmCham notes that funding for the development and updating of building codes should come from general government funding mechanisms, rather than through an additional burden on private investment. The organization also highlights the importance of a predictable tax policy, especially for infrastructure projects with long payback periods.
In this regard, AmCham Moldova asks Parliament to reconsider the advisability of maintaining the levy mechanism, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of its economic consequences, organize extensive consultations with the business community, and explore alternative ways to finance the development of construction standards without imposing additional taxes on productive investments.
