A tax inspection is rarely lost at the closing discussion. It is lost along the way: in an explanatory note written in haste, in a stack of documents handed over without an inventory, in a “friendly” remark tossed off in the corridor and found again, months later, in the tax inspection report (raport de inspecție fiscală). From the moment the inspection starts, every piece of paper handed over and every sentence spoken becomes material for the administrative act that will be issued at the end.
By the time the inspection team reaches you, the selection was made long before, based on the risk analysis (Article 121 CPF). As a rule you will already have received the notice of inspection (aviz de inspecție fiscală) (Article 122 CPF), 30 days beforehand for large taxpayers, 15 days for others, and, in some cases, a compliance notice (notificare de conformare) (Article 121¹ CPF), with 30 days in which you could correct your own returns.
After receiving the notice, you may request, once only, for justified reasons, that the start date be postponed; the tax authority approves or rejects the request by decision. The markers of procedural discipline worth knowing from day one:
The start of the inspection is entered in the register (Legea nr. 252/2003), mandatory for legal persons, optional but recommended for PFA (persoană fizică autorizată). Failing to have purchased one, or failing to present it at the inspection, are administrative offences (contravenție) (500-1,000 lei, and 1,000-2,000 lei, respectively).
45 days for small taxpayers, 90 for medium-sized ones, 180 for large taxpayers and those with secondary offices (Article 126 CPF). If the duration doubles without the inspection being completed, the inspection ceases automatically.
The inspection is carried out only once for each type of tax claim and each period (Article 118 CPF); reverification is possible only under the conditions of Article 128 CPF, on the basis of additional information unknown at the date of the first inspection.
The inspection is generally carried out at the premises of the tax inspection authority (Article 125(1) CPF), on the basis of documents submitted; a presence at your own premises remains possible when necessary. The inspection may be suspended under the conditions of Article 127 CPF, including at your request, once only.
Something many taxpayers underestimate: the inspectors do not start from zero. Before their first request, they already have your invoices from RO e-Factura, the national electronic invoicing system (mandatory for B2B from 1 July 2024 and for B2C from 1 January 2025), your accounting data from SAF-T (the D406 return, including for small taxpayers, from 1 January 2025), the pre-filled RO e-TVA return, transport data from e-Transport, receipts from connected cash registers, reports from online platforms and, where needed, bank statements and CRS data on foreign accounts.
The practical conclusion: many of the questions you are asked already have a partial answer in data already held by ANAF, Romania's national tax administration. They test your consistency, not the inspector's ignorance, which is why “from memory” approximations are so dangerous.
The company's director, the finance director, or an authorised representative appointed under Article 18 CPF. Throughout the inspection you have the right to specialist or legal assistance (Article 124(3) CPF); use it from the start, not after the first incident.
No one outside the designated channel hands over documents, gives explanations, or confirms or denies anything. Requests received directly by employees are redirected, politely, to the single point of contact.
Every request, its date, its subject, the time limit granted, and the date and content of what was handed over. The log becomes your evidence of cooperative conduct and of the actual time limits within which you responded.
Put verbal requests in writing: confirm by e-mail or through the Spațiul Privat Virtual (SPV), the tax authority's secure online portal, what was asked of you. What is not written down cannot be proven, either by them or by you.
The working rule: copies certified “true to the original”, with the originals remaining with you. Original documents may only be taken away against a minutes and a detailed inventory, with your right to keep copies.
The name of the document, the number, the date, the number of pages. Generic descriptions (“a folder of papers”) should be refused.
If the request covers large volumes or old archives, ask in writing for an extension, with reasons. Reasoned requests for postponement are a normal practice, unlike silence, which lets the deadline expire.
Keep an exact duplicate of everything you hand over. At the end of the inspection you need to know precisely what the inspectors saw; the position statement and the appeal are built on the same material. For details, see the documents ANAF can request.
WARNING. Never hand over documents “in a heap”, without an inventory, and never let the inspection team leave with the only copy of a document. A file handed over in disorder can no longer be reconstructed, and at the appeal stage you will be arguing “blind”, without knowing exactly what evidence the tax authority holds.
The explanatory note is the tool through which the inspection authority requests written explanations from the legal representative or the employees. It looks like a trivial document, but it carries substantial evidential weight: what you write there stays in the file and will be quoted.
If you do not know the answer with certainty, state that you will answer in writing, and ask for the questions in written form, with a reasonable time limit. Administrative practice confirms this mechanism: where an immediate answer is not possible, the questions are sent in writing, with a time limit of no less than 5 working days.
Strictly factual, documented, with no speculation and no assessment of intentions. What you do not know, say that you do not know and that you will check; a “do not know”, followed up in writing, is a legitimate answer; a mistaken approximation is evidence against you.
The statements of the director, the accountant and the employees must be based on the same facts. Contradictions between explanatory notes are used to undermine the credibility of the entire defence.
Sham transactions, intent, “did you know that...”, stop and consult your lawyer before giving any answer. The explanatory note can end up as evidence in a criminal file for tax evasion.
Employees deserve a separate mention: they too can be questioned. The right guidance is not “do not talk to anyone”, but: answer politely, strictly on what you know directly, with no estimates and no “that's usually how it's done”; do not sign anything on the company's behalf; report any discussion immediately to the single point of contact.
Backdated contracts, fabricated minutes, receipts filled in retroactively, all of this amounts to forgery of documents and feeds directly into the criminal side of the case. The absence of a document can be explained; forging it is punished.
Electronic records leave traces, and much of the data has already been reported (e-Factura, SAF-T). The discrepancy between what you deleted and what ANAF holds is itself a finding.
The director's version must match the accountant's, not because it is “coordinated”, but because it starts from the same documents.
With the inspection team, there is no “off the record”. Courtesy, yes; confidences, estimates, spontaneous justifications, no. Anything that matters is communicated in writing.
An unjustified refusal to present documents is an administrative offence (Article 336 CPF), punishable by a fine of 25,000 to 27,000 lei for medium-sized and large taxpayers, and 6,000 to 8,000 lei for other legal persons and for individuals.
Any attempt to influence the inspection team other than through arguments and documents enters criminal territory and is treated as such; the subject should not even be raised.
WARNING. A difficult tax inspection remains, as a rule, a dispute about money. A forgery committed during the inspection, a fabricated document, an “arranged” signature, turns a dispute about money into a case about liberty. No amount in a tax assessment decision justifies that trade.
The taxpayer has the right to be informed during the inspection about the matters found (Article 130(1) CPF), not only at the end. Use this right systematically.
Sensitive topics surface through questions and requests; do not wait for the draft report to find out what is being held against you.
A short memorandum, with supporting documents attached, filed during the inspection, fixes your version before the team's position crystallises, and requires them to consider it.
The chronology of the inspection, the log of requests, the copies handed over, the correspondence, relevant case law, expert opinions and alternative calculations. When the draft report arrives, the defence does not start from zero.
The written position on the draft report is filed within 5 working days at most (7 for large taxpayers), with the possibility of an extension for justified reasons (Article 130 CPF).
The tax assessment decision (decizie de impunere) is issued within 25 working days at most of the end of the inspection (Article 131 CPF), and against it you have a 45-day administrative appeal from the date of communication.
Filtering communication, giving a legal characterisation to findings as they emerge, preparing the appeal while the inspection is still under way, these are done during the inspection, not after.
All the more so because an inspection at the company can slide towards the director's personal assets: the review of personal tax status and the 70% tax on income of unidentified origin have, since 6 July 2026 (OPANAF nr. 768/2026), also been within reach of the Anti-Fraud inspectors, with the statement of assets and income as a central piece. And issues of reclassification (PFA, collaborators) frequently arise even in “routine” inspections.
You can, and as a rule it is advisable. Ask for the question in writing and for a reasonable time limit for a documented answer; administrative practice expressly recognises this mechanism. What you cannot do is refuse to answer altogether: the duty to cooperate exists, and an unjustified refusal is an administrative offence. The difference is between “I answer correctly, in writing, on time” and “I do not answer”.
In practice, yes: the inspection authority may request the documents even if some of the data already exists in ANAF's systems, precisely to check whether your records match what was reported. Hand them over in an organised way, with an inventory, and note it in the log. If the request becomes disproportionate, state in writing that the data can be found in the electronic filings and ask for the request to be narrowed or staggered. Keep the proof of your electronic submissions too; they are your argument for consistency.
Correct it immediately, in writing: an addendum to the explanatory note or a letter from the company clarifying the facts, with documents attached. Do not pressure the employee to “retract”; the pressure will turn against you. An inaccuracy corrected promptly and on a documented basis remains an incident; an inaccuracy left to settle becomes a finding.
Yes: through an authorised representative appointed under Article 18 CPF, communication can be channelled entirely, and the right to specialist assistance during the inspection is explicit (Article 124(3) CPF). Certain acts nonetheless remain personal: the legal representative signs the final declaration on their own responsibility, and your presence at the closing discussion is generally advisable. Channelling communication does not mean absence, it means discipline.
Informative material, updated on 17 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts.
If you have an inspection under way or have just received a notification, the related analyses are grouped under tax inspection and the review of individuals. For how such matters are handled, see tax assistance.
Time limits run from the date of communication. A first conversation clarifies what is being alleged, what you need to substantiate and how the defence is built, before an estimate becomes a tax assessment decision.