Thousands of entrepreneurs sell goods online every day and ship them to customers through delivery services on a cash-on-delivery basis. Until recently, however, such businesses faced substantial fines equal to or, when imposed for extended past periods, even exceeding the total value of the goods sold.
What was the problem?
During tax audits, the tax authorities required sellers to issue a fiscal receipt for the goods and place it inside the parcel before dispatch. In other words, the sale had to be “fiscalized” before any payment had been made, even though the customer could ultimately refuse to accept the parcel.
The consequences for the seller depended on who collected the payment from the customer and transferred it to the seller. When the payment was collected by a bank, the seller was not required to issue a receipt. However, when the same payment was collected by a non-bank financial institution, a receipt was required.
Thus, transactions that were essentially identical were treated differently solely depending on who transferred the funds, even though, under the law, banks and non-bank financial institutions are equally recognized as payment service providers.
It is also important that the fines were imposed in relation to non-cash funds that sellers properly recorded in their accounts and on which they paid taxes. Information about these payments was already available to the tax authorities through receipts issued by the financial institutions themselves. The movement of funds was therefore transparent, and the state budget suffered no loss of revenue.
The Council’s position
The Business Ombudsman Council supported the entrepreneurs and consistently maintained that there was no obligation to fiscalize a sale at the moment of dispatch, as no payment had yet been made. Moreover, the seller received the funds in non-cash form not from the customer, but from a non-bank financial institution.
The Council repeatedly communicated this position to the State Tax Service and the Ministry of Finance. When the authorities considered adopting a general tax consultation aimed at formalizing the tax authorities’ restrictive approach, the Council insisted that they should first await the Supreme Court’s position rather than deepen legal uncertainty shortly before the country’s highest court issued its ruling.
How the problem was resolved
To present the arguments of the business community directly to the court, in March 2026 the Council submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court. The document is available at: https://bit.ly/4oV5KeE
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of businesses and established the first legal conclusions on this issue. In two judgments, the Court confirmed that a seller’s receipt of funds from a non-bank financial institution does not constitute a settlement transaction. Therefore, the seller is not required to issue a fiscal receipt for the goods:
– judgment of 3 June 2026 in case No. 520/27700/25;
– judgment of 30 June 2026 in case No. 340/5132/25.
The outcome
The Supreme Court’s legal conclusions are binding on all public authorities. The tax authorities have reported that they have already suspended audits concerning this issue.
For thousands of online retailers, this means a more predictable legal environment and greater confidence that their chosen business model complies with the law. It is also a reminder that clear rules should be established in advance—not after sanctions have already been imposed.
We thank the judges of the Supreme Court for their balanced and responsible position, and the State Tax Service for its constructive decision to suspend the audits. We sincerely hope that the Supreme Court’s position will continue to serve as a reliable guide for the tax authorities.
