You filed objections, the expert responded with a supplement that changed too little, and the report remains, in essence, the same. At this point the question is no longer whether the report can be corrected, but whether it can be replaced. The heavy instrument for that is called, in procedural language, “a new expert report,” known in practice as a counter-expert report. It is not granted on a simple request, but, correctly grounded, it can overturn the one piece of evidence the file rests on: the figures.
The term “counter-expert report” does not appear as such in the codes; in practice it describes the institution of “carrying out a new expert report.” In civil proceedings, it is governed by Article 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure: for well founded reasons, the court may order, on request or of its own motion, a new expert report to be carried out by a different expert. In criminal proceedings, the basis is Article 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the criminal investigation body or the court orders a new expert report when the report's conclusions are unclear or contradictory, or when there are contradictions between the content and the conclusions of the report, and these shortcomings cannot be removed by hearing the expert. As a means of evidence, the court-appointed expert report (expertiză judiciară) is discussed at length in evidence in tax litigation.
The essential distinction, and the one most often ignored, is the one against a supplement. A supplementary expert report (Article 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the clarification or completion under Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is carried out, as a rule, by the same expert and only clarifies or completes a report that is in essence sound. A counter-expert report replaces the report with a new one, prepared by someone else, and is justified only when the defects are substantive, not a matter of detail. Asking for a new expert report over a simple lack of clarity is a strategic mistake: the court will order, at most, a supplement, and the party will have used up an argument.
Not every grievance justifies a new expert report, but a few situations call for one almost always. They share a common feature: the defect cannot be repaired through clarifications, because it lies in the very construction of the report, not in an isolated figure.
The conclusions contradict one another, or contradict the body of the report, one figure in the analysis, another in the conclusion.
The expert left essential objectives unresolved, and completion is no longer enough.
The methodology applied is wrong in its very principle: reconstruction by indirect methods where the books existed, an erroneous tax base, an ignored technical standard.
The matter called for a tax expert report, but the report was produced on accounting ground (or the other way round), or the expert settled matters beyond his specialisation.
The report states a result but does not present the verifiable calculation to support it; the conclusion is, in practice, an assertion.
This is where the trap lies. A new expert report is not a right of the dissatisfied party; it is a measure the court weighs, for “well founded reasons.” Mere dissatisfaction with the conclusions, however firm, does not amount to a well founded reason. What convinces the court are concrete defects, shown beforehand through the defects raised by objections: the party must have shown, point by point, where the report is wrong and why the error cannot be repaired by a simple supplement.
This is why a counter-expert report is prepared well in advance, through two steps. First, the technical objections that expose the defects. Then, if the supplement does not remedy them, the request for a new expert report, which rests precisely on these unresolved defects. The role of the party-appointed expert is to show, technically and verifiably, that the report has a substantive flaw, not a nuance. Without this demonstration, a request for a counter-expert report remains an assertion and is, as a rule, rejected.
NOTE. A badly requested counter-expert report is not neutral, it is counterproductive. If the court rejects it as unfounded, the signal sent is that the original report withstands the criticism, and the opposing party's position is strengthened. And if the new expert report is ordered anyway but confirms the first one's conclusions, the party is left with two reports against it instead of one, plus the cost and months of extra proceedings. A counter-expert report should be requested only when the prior technical analysis shows, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the correct method leads to a different result. It is not a second roll of the dice; it is a calculated move.
A counter-expert report is rarely the first step; it is usually the last in a sequence the court expects to see followed. The natural order, which gives the request the most credit, is as follows.
By the party-appointed expert, immediately after it is filed.
Filed on time, setting out the defects precisely.
The official expert responds to the objections.
Did it remedy the substantive defect, or merely explain it?
If the defect persists, grounded exactly on the shortcomings left unresolved.
Going through this sequence is not bureaucracy. It turns the request for a counter-expert report from an assertion (“we do not agree”) into a conclusion (“the report was criticised technically, the expert had the chance to correct it, did not do so, so a new expert report is necessary”). Skipping steps weakens the request and gives the opposing party the argument that the grievance has no substance.
In civil proceedings, the new expert report is entrusted to a different expert from the one who prepared the original report; the court may also appoint three experts, where the complexity calls for it. In criminal proceedings, a new expert report may be carried out by a different expert, by a panel of experts, or, in fields where the law provides for it, by a specialist institute or laboratory. In tax matters, the court-appointed expert report is reserved to tax advisers entered on the Lista experților fiscali judiciari, the register of forensic tax experts, under the Rules on carrying out judicial and extrajudicial tax expert reports by tax advisers, approved by Hotărârea Camerei Consultanților Fiscali nr. 2/2026 (applicable from 11 February 2026); court-appointed accounting expert reports remain the preserve of certified accountants who are members of CECCAR, the Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania. Choosing the right profile for the new expert, tax or accounting, is itself a strategic decision, because a report wrongly assigned by specialisation is exactly one of the reasons a counter-expert report is requested.
When the new expert report applies the correct method, the effect is not cosmetic. I describe, as a mechanism, a few typical reversals.
An adjustment set on the basis of an unsuitable set of comparables or an inadequate method can be undone by correct benchmarking: a rigorous comparability analysis can show that the price between the group companies fell within the market range, which removes the adjustment and the tax that goes with it.
A loss in a tax evasion file can be substantially reduced, sometimes by half, if the new expert report corrects the tax base (profit, not turnover), removes the time-barred periods, and takes account of the supporting documents that were ignored.
Treating an activity as dependent employment, or an operation as lacking economic substance, can be overturned if the new expert report applies the correct criteria and takes account of the real evidence of the commercial relationship.
The stakes are even higher in criminal proceedings, following Decision no. 430/2025 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție): the loss from tax evasion must be established through a specialist expert report, which has become the central evidence for the prosecution. When the original report is methodologically flawed, a counter-expert report does not attack a detail, it attacks the foundation of the case.
In tax litigation before the administrative courts, a counter-expert report also has its own evidential dimension. Under Article 73 of the Tax Procedure Code, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the acts and facts underlying his returns, while the tax authority bears the burden of giving reasons for its administrative tax act. A well built new expert report is often the only means by which the taxpayer can technically prove his own version of the facts and show that the reasons given for the adjustment do not hold up on the figures.
A counter-expert report is an expensive tool in three currencies. Financial: the new expert's fee, on top of the cost of the party-appointed expert who prepares and argues the request. Time: a new expert report extends the proceedings by months, sometimes by a year, which can matter enormously when precautionary measures, garnishments, or a seizure are at stake. Procedural: the already mentioned risk that a rejection or a confirmation will strengthen the opposing position. These costs are not arguments against a counter-expert report; they are arguments for requesting one only when the prior analysis justifies the bet. It is always worth comparing what the party-appointed expert costs and what he brings.
The practical rule is simple: never ask for a counter-expert report “on trust,” only after you have your own technical analysis showing that the correct method produces a different result. This second opinion, an independent evaluation of the report before the request is filed, is the cheapest filter against a wrong move. If the analysis confirms that the report is essentially correct, the request is not filed, and the party saves its time and money for more productive grounds of defence. If the analysis undermines the report, the request for a counter-expert report becomes a well founded decision, not a gesture of despair.
There are also situations where the right answer is not to ask for a counter-expert report. When the original report is, in essence, correct and merely inconvenient; when the amount at stake does not justify months of extra proceedings and the cost of a new expert; when a delay would extend a seizure weighing on the business, in all of these, the energy is better invested on other ground: the unlawfulness of the evidence, the limitation period, substantive grounds. An honest party-appointed expert will also tell you when a counter-expert report is not worthwhile; that is often the most valuable recommendation he can give.
A very useful tool at this stage is the extrajudicial party-appointed tax expert report: an independent report, commissioned by the taxpayer outside the proceedings, which reconstructs the calculation correctly and exposes the defects in the court-appointed report. Although it does not bind the court, such a report supplies the technical substance of the request for a new expert report and shows the judge that the “well founded reason” is not a bare assertion but a documented methodological disagreement.
A credible request for a counter-expert report rests on a technical file, not on adjectives. In preparing it, you document:
And how the supplement failed to remedy them, the proof that the defect is substantive.
Shown through the technical rule or standard that was breached, and its effect on the result.
The correct result, obtained through the proper method, with the supporting data and documents attached.
By the original report, with an indication of where they sit on the case file.
Between the court-appointed report and the party's own analysis, framed technically, not polemically.
As with objections, a counter-expert report is built by two people together. The party-appointed expert establishes whether there is, technically, a real reason for a new expert report and prepares the technical file. The lawyer decides whether and when to file the request, drafts it in procedural language, places it within the statutory time limits, and argues it in light of the case's overall strategy, including its effect on precautionary measures and the length of the proceedings. The decision to ask for a new expert report is neither purely technical nor purely legal; it is a joint decision, in which the stakes, the cost, and the chances are weighed together.
In theory, the request can be filed, but the chances drop sharply. The court orders a new expert report for “well founded reasons,” and in practice these are demonstrated precisely through the defects shown in objections and left unremedied after the supplement. Without this step, the request risks looking like a grievance rather than a well founded reason, and being rejected.
The court is not automatically bound by either report; it weighs both, together with the rest of the evidence. When there are two diverging expert reports, the contradiction itself becomes an argument, the court can ask for clarifications, confront the experts, or, in exceptional cases, order a third expert report. This is why the quality and clarity of the counter-calculation matter just as much as the mere existence of a second report.
It depends on the complexity and on the expert's workload, but, as an order of magnitude, a new expert report adds months to the length of the proceedings. This delay must be assessed in context: sometimes it works in the party's favour, at other times, when a seizure or a garnishment is in place, it works against it. The decision is made with this calculation in mind.
It does not bind the court and does not carry the weight of a court-appointed expert report, but it has real value: it gives the request for a counter-expert report a technical foundation, shows that the disagreement is methodological rather than a matter of opinion, and gives the newly appointed expert a structured starting point. It is usually the best preparatory investment before asking for a new expert report.
This article is strictly informative and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Individual situations must be assessed on their own facts. Legislation as at 18 July 2026.
If the file contains a calculation that needs checking, the other analyses are grouped under the party-appointed tax expert. For the technical role in the defence, see tax expert evidence.
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.