Abstract
This study conducts a comparative analysis of the tax systems in Romania and Finland, two European Union member states that exhibit significant differences in terms of legislative stability, the level of tax digitalisation and administrative efficiency. In the context of the digital transformation of public administration and increasing demands for transparency and tax compliance, a comparative assessment of tax systems is relevant for identifying best practices and informing tax policy decisions. The main objective of the research is to assess accounting professionals’ perceptions of the functionality and efficiency of the two tax systems, as well as to identify the relationship between tax digitalisation and voluntary taxpayer compliance. The study contributes to the specialist literature by integrating a comparative perspective on the institutional and technological factors influencing the performance of modern tax systems.
The research methodology is based on a quantitative approach, using a structured questionnaire administered to a sample of 109 professional accountants, trainees of the Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania (CECCAR). The data collected were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods, including an analysis of the reliability of the research instrument (Cronbach’s Alpha). The results highlight the existence of statistically significant differences between respondents’ perceptions of the two tax systems, indicating a higher level of predictability, legislative stability and digitalisation in the case of the Finnish tax system. Furthermore, the regression analysis confirms the existence of a positive and significant relationship between tax digitalisation and voluntary taxpayer compliance, highlighting the role of digital transformation in increasing tax efficiency. The study’s conclusions emphasise the need to accelerate the process of modernising and digitising Romania’s tax administration, with a view to increasing transparency, reducing administrative complexity and improving institutional performance in the long term.
The research methodology is based on a quantitative approach, using a structured questionnaire administered to a sample of 109 professional accountants, trainees of the Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania (CECCAR). The data collected were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods, including an analysis of the reliability of the research instrument (Cronbach’s Alpha). The results highlight the existence of statistically significant differences between respondents’ perceptions of the two tax systems, indicating a higher level of predictability, legislative stability and digitalisation in the case of the Finnish tax system. Furthermore, the regression analysis confirms the existence of a positive and significant relationship between tax digitalisation and voluntary taxpayer compliance, highlighting the role of digital transformation in increasing tax efficiency. The study’s conclusions emphasise the need to accelerate the process of modernising and digitising Romania’s tax administration, with a view to increasing transparency, reducing administrative complexity and improving institutional performance in the long term.
Cuvinte cheie
financial literacy in corporate governance
Istoric articol
Publicat
31.08.2026
Informații autori
Citare recomandată
Nicoleta Claudia Vizireanu (2026). The Impact of Digitalization on Tax System Efficiency: A Comparative Study Between România and Finland. Constantin Brâncuși University of Târgu Jiu Economics Series, 2(1), 412–418. https://doi.org/10.65631/jes.4.2026.37
Referințe bibliografice
Lobont, O.R., Doran, N.M., Vătafu Sorana, Bărbulescu, M.A., Costea, F. (2025). The Dark Side of Growth: Are Shadow Economies Undermining the Global Climate Goal. Sustainability Switzerland, 17(11), 4865. DOI:10.3390/su17114865 Onofrei, M., Vatamanu, Anca Gavriluță, Bostan, I., Oprea, F., Paraschiv, G. (2020). The Implication of Fiscal Principles and Rules on Promoting Sustainable Public Finances in EU Countries. Sustainability Switzerland, 12(7), 2772. DOI:10.3390/su12072772 Socol, Cristian, Marinaș, Marius, Socol, Aura Gabriela, Armeanu, Dan. (2018). Fiscal adjustment programmes versus socially sustainable competitiveness in EU countries. Sustainability Switzerland, 10(10), 3390. DOI:10.3390/su10103390 Alexandru, Dana Georgeta, Bălan Emil, Berceanu Ionuț Bogdan, Iftene Cristi, Varia Gabriela. (2025). Green Initiative and Mineral Governance: The Interplay of EU Policies and Romania’s Regulatory Framework. Sustainability Switzerland, 17(10), 4512. DOI:10.3390/su17104512 Badiu, Cristina Elena, Bărbuță-Mișu, Nicoleta, Chiriță, Mioara, Soare, Ionica, Zlati, Monica Laura, Fortea, Costinela, Antohy Valentin Marian. (2024). Modelling the Impact of VAT Fiscality on Branch-Level Performance in the Construction Industry—Evidence from Romania. Economies, 12(2), 30. DOI:10.3390/economies12020030 Buciu, A., Bostan, I., Condrea, P., Grosu, V. (2010). Financing environmental policies in the European Union. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 9(9), 1179–1185. DOI:10.30638/eemj.2010.153 Stanciu, C., Mitu, N.E. (2025). Financial levers and carbon emissions: analysing the debt-emission nexus in the European Union. Applied Economics, 57(48), 7889–7908. DOI:10.1080/00036846.2024.2393901 Voda, A.D., Dobrotă, G., Dobrota, D., Dumitrașcu, D.D. (2022). Error Correction Model for Analysis of the Influence of Fiscal Policy on Economic Growth in the EU. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(3), 586–605. DOI:10.3846/jbem.2022.16242 Grosu, A.C., Pintilescu, C., Zugravu, B. (2022). Trends in Public Debt Sustainability in Central and Eastern EU Countries. Post-Communist Economies, 34(2), 173–195. DOI:10.1080/14631377.2020.1867431 Țibulcă, I.L. (2021). Debt Sustainability: Can EU Member States Use Environmental Taxes to Regain Fiscal Space? Sustainability Switzerland, 13(11), 5952. DOI:10.3390/su13115952 Tofan, M., Onofrei, M. (2020). Debt Fiscal Responsibility Legal Framework—a New Paradigm for Fiscal Discipline in the EU. Risks, 8(3), 79. DOI:10.3390/risks8030079