An inspection announced for a few weeks can turn, through successive suspensions, into a procedure that weighs on the business for years. The law does not, however, leave this interval to the tax authority's discretion: the Tax Procedure Code ('the Tax Procedure Code') caps the duration of the inspection, strictly regulates suspension and, a decisive point often overlooked, sanctions any breach of the maximum limits with automatic termination and the nullity of the acts issued.
Under Article 126(1) the Tax Procedure Code, the duration of the inspection is set by the inspection body according to its objectives, but may not exceed: 180 days for large taxpayers, for those with secondary establishments (regardless of size) and for non-residents (moved into this category by OG nr. 31/2022); 90 days for medium-sized taxpayers; 45 days for the rest, small companies, PFA (persoană fizică autorizată), the authorised sole-trader form, and liberal professions.
The duration runs from the date the inspection begins, the date recorded in the single control register, or, when the inspection takes place at the tax authority's premises, the date stated in the notice (Article 123 the Tax Procedure Code). Periods of lawful suspension are not counted (Article 127(7) the Tax Procedure Code), nor is the period required for the hearing under Article 9(3)(b) (Article 130(2) the Tax Procedure Code).
A point many taxpayers learn too late: exceeding the 180/90/45-day time limits does not, by itself, render null the inspection report or the tax assessment decision. Practice was unified on this point at the meeting of the presidents of the administrative and tax litigation divisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) and of the courts of appeal (Craiova, 17-18 October 2019): the time limits under Article 126(1) are recommendatory, and exceeding them can attract, at most, the disciplinary liability of the inspectors. The real sanction is triggered at the next threshold.
Article 126(2) the Tax Procedure Code provides that, if the inspection is not completed within a period equal to double the maximum duration, that is 360, 180 or 90 effective days respectively, excluding periods of lawful suspension, the tax inspection terminates, and no inspection report, tax assessment decision or decision not to amend the tax base may then be issued.
Since Legea nr. 295/2020, Article 49(1)(f) the Tax Procedure Code expressly sanctions with nullity the issuing of the inspection report and the tax assessment decision (or the decision not to amend the tax base) after the inspection has terminated under Article 126(2), without a lawful resumption. Nullity is raised in the administrative appeal, in court, or through the special procedure under Article 49(2) the Tax Procedure Code.
Once the inspection terminates, the suspension of the limitation period for the duration of the inspection under Article 111(2)(b) the Tax Procedure Code does not apply (Article 126(3) the Tax Procedure Code). The five-year limitation period is calculated as if the inspection had never taken place.
The inspection may be resumed only once, for the same period and the same obligations, only with the approval of the body hierarchically superior to the one that approved the initial inspection, and only within the limitation period (Article 126(2)).
Since the limitation period was not suspended, resumption often becomes impossible in practice for the oldest years, precisely the ones in which the largest sums are usually concentrated.
WARNING. Do not confuse the two thresholds. Exceeding the simple duration (180/90/45 days) does not render the acts void; a defence built solely on this argument will be dismissed. Exceeding double the duration does, however, trigger the automatic termination of the inspection and the nullity of any acts issued afterwards. The exact count of days, excluding lawful suspensions, determines which scenario you are in.
Suspension periods are not counted towards the duration, which is precisely why the law makes them strictly conditional. The head of the inspection may decide to suspend it only if the situation that has arisen prevents the inspection from being completed, and only in the cases set out in Article 127(1) the Tax Procedure Code.
The lawful grounds: cross-checks; carrying out measures already ordered, including the transfer pricing file (dosarul prețurilor de transfer); a decision of the Central Tax Commission; carrying out an expert report; inquiries to identify persons or establish the reality of transactions; requests for information or documents from authorities, institutions or third parties, including foreign tax authorities; completion of other control actions against the same taxpayer; checks on the other members of the tax group; the immediate opening of an inspection against another taxpayer; the existence of judicial proceedings concerning evidence, or the seizure of accounting and financial documents by the criminal investigation body (point (i¹)); other duly justified cases. Suspension may also be decided at the taxpayer's justified request (paragraph (3)) and where the outcome of an administrative appeal or a court action concerning the same taxpayer may affect the results of the inspection (paragraph (4)).
Suspension lasts until the reason for it ceases, but for no more than 6 months (Article 127(2)).
Judicial proceedings concerning evidence, or documents seized by the criminal investigation body: the six-month cap does not apply. This is the gateway through which inspections paired with a criminal file remain suspended for years.
Suspension requested by the taxpayer may not exceed 3 months.
The suspension decision must be issued and communicated; suspension starts on the date stated in the decision or, failing that, on the date of communication (Article 127(5)). A “de facto” suspension that has not been communicated does not stop the duration from running.
Within 10 days at most of the reason ceasing or the period expiring, the tax authority notifies you and sets the date of resumption (paragraph (6)).
During suspension you do not have the obligations under Article 124(1)-(2) the Tax Procedure Code; the team cannot, under cover of the suspension, continue to ask you for documents and explanations (paragraph (8)).
You have the right to learn what evidence was obtained during the suspension in connection with your tax position (paragraph (9)).
The suspension decision can be challenged under Title VIII the Tax Procedure Code (paragraph (10)), an administrative appeal within 45 days of communication, the direct tool against suspensions ordered as a formality, without a real reason.
The tax authority's right to assess claims is subject to a limitation period, as a rule, of 5 years from 1 July of the year following the one for which the liability is owed (Article 110 the Tax Procedure Code). During the inspection the period is suspended, but on a condition: under Article 111(2)(b) the Tax Procedure Code, the limitation period is suspended between the date the inspection (or the review of the taxpayer's personal tax position) begins and the date the tax assessment decision is issued, provided that the lawful duration for carrying them out is respected.
An inspection that exceeds its lawful duration therefore loses the suspensive effect for the entire period: by the date the decision is issued, some of the years under review may already be time-barred, a defence that must be expressly raised, it is not applied automatically. Add Article 126(3) the Tax Procedure Code (on termination of the inspection, suspension of the limitation period does not apply) and you have the complete line of defence. Mind the reverse side: the limitation period is also suspended for the period during which the taxpayer evades the inspection, so your own delaying tactics will not help you.
For the review of an individual's personal tax position (verificarea situației fiscale personale, VSFP), the procedure by which ANAF, Romania's national tax administration, compares an individual's declared income against actual financial flows and wealth, with the stake being the 70% taxation of income from an unidentified source, the duration is separately regulated.
The time limit is 270 days at most from the start date, recorded in the minutes (Article 140(6) and (6¹) the Tax Procedure Code, in the form given by Legea nr. 295/2020; in the original 2015 version, the time limit was 365 days). Periods granted for producing documents and information, including the 60-day time limit for the wealth and income declaration, are not counted towards the 270 days (Article 140(7) the Tax Procedure Code), so the review can take calendar time longer than that without being unlawful.
Suspension of the VSFP has its own rules (Article 142 the Tax Procedure Code): an expert report, inquiries to identify persons or establish the reality of transactions, additional information from third parties or foreign tax authorities, the use of information from other reviews, and, once only, at the individual's written request, for an objective situation confirmed by the tax authority. Both suspension and resumption must be communicated.
The sanction for exceeding it is the same as for an inspection: Article 49(1)(f) the Tax Procedure Code expressly covers the issuing of the review report and the tax assessment decision after the VSFP has terminated under Article 140(6) read together with Article 147 and Article 126(2), without a lawful resumption. The courts have begun to apply the text: in judgment no. 248 of 29 April 2026, the Olt Tribunal held that exceeding the 270 days led to the automatic termination of the review, and that the review report and tax assessment decision issued afterwards, without a lawful resumption of the procedure, are void for absolute nullity. This is a first-instance ruling, a point of reference for argument, not a definitively settled line of practice, but it illustrates exactly the mechanism the law describes. In a context where, under OPANAF nr. 768/2026, the VSFP can also be carried out by anti-fraud inspectors, discipline over time limits remains one of the taxpayer's few real counterweights.
The notice, the start date, every suspension and resumption decision, every request for documents. Ask in writing for copies of any procedural documents you are missing.
Deduct only the suspensions ordered by a communicated decision, and check whether the inspection stays within the maximum time limit and double that limit. A chronological table, with the days for each interval, is the centrepiece of the defence.
Does the reason fall within Article 127(1)? Did it genuinely prevent completion? Was the six-month limit exceeded? Unlawful suspensions are not deducted from the duration, which can push the inspection past the threshold for automatic termination.
Within 45 days of communication, when the suspension is a mere formality or unreasoned. The administrative appeal fixes your position on record and documents the abuse.
About the time limits being exceeded, asking for the matter to be completed. The notification does not suspend anything, but it creates a written record that carries weight in the administrative appeal and in court.
In your written position on the draft inspection report, and then in the administrative appeal: automatic termination, the nullity of the acts (Article 49(1)(f) the Tax Procedure Code), the loss of the suspensive effect on the limitation period, and, in court, the annulment of the preparatory acts under Article 18 of Legea nr. 554/2004.
WARNING, why you should not “run down the clock”. Obstructing the inspection so that the time limit “keeps running” is the wrong strategy. Delays attributable to you are, as a rule, converted into lawful suspensions that are not counted towards the duration. Evading the inspection itself suspends the limitation period. An unjustified refusal to produce documents is a minor offence and opens the way to estimating the tax base (Article 106 the Tax Procedure Code). The duration-based defence only works if the delay belongs to the tax authority, so cooperate on the record and let the time run against the authority.
Resumption after suspension is the continuation of the same inspection: the tax authority notifies you that the reason has ceased and sets the date of resumption, and the duration is calculated by adding up the active intervals.
Resumption after automatic termination (exceeding double the duration) is an exceptional procedure: only once, only with the approval of the superior hierarchical authority, for the same period and the same obligations, and only within whatever limitation period remains, a period that, this time, was not suspended by the terminated inspection. Any act issued after termination, without this formal resumption, is void. It should also not be confused with the re-audit under Article 128 the Tax Procedure Code, which has its own conditions.
No, as a rule. Suspension lasts until the reason for it ceases, but for no more than 6 months (3 months when requested by the taxpayer). The exception is the one under Article 127(1)(i¹) the Tax Procedure Code, judicial proceedings concerning evidence or documents seized by the criminal investigation body, where the cap does not apply, and the inspection resumes once the proceedings end or access to the documents is regained. Even in this case, the suspension is ordered by a communicated decision, which you can challenge.
The inspection had already terminated automatically at the moment the limit was exceeded, so the inspection report and the tax assessment decision issued afterwards, without a lawful resumption of the inspection, are void (Article 49(1)(f) the Tax Procedure Code). Raise the nullity through an administrative appeal within 45 days of communication and, afterwards, in the administrative courts. Also check the limitation period: the period of the terminated inspection did not suspend the five-year time limit.
The limitation period is suspended for the entire interval between the start of the inspection and the issuing of the tax assessment decision, including for the duration of any lawful suspensions, but only on condition that the lawful duration of the inspection is respected (Article 111(2)(b) the Tax Procedure Code). If the lawful duration is exceeded, the suspensive effect falls away for the whole interval, and on termination of the inspection the law expressly excludes suspension (Article 126(3) the Tax Procedure Code).
No. Periods laid down by law or set by the tax authority for producing documents and information, for example the time limit of up to 60 days for the wealth and income declaration, are not included in the calculation of the 270 days (Article 140(7) the Tax Procedure Code). This is why a review can exceed 270 calendar days without being unlawful; the calculation must be done rigorously, interval by interval, before termination is invoked.
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.