A good accountant keeps the books correctly. But when an anti-fraud inspection begins or a criminal file is opened, and operations recorded impeccably turn out, on the authority's case, to be fictitious, correct bookkeeping is no longer, on its own, a defence. Written for accountants and accounting firms: where the accountant's role ends and where the need for a party-appointed tax expert begins.
The accountant builds and maintains the books. The party-appointed tax expert examines them critically, in a context of dispute, inspection, appeal, or criminal file, and produces evidence that stands up before the tax authority or the court. These are different roles, with different logics. The books answer the question of what was recorded; the technical defence answers whether the tax base on which the accusation rests is correct, and how it is taken apart.
When an inspection begins or a file is opened, the client needs the second competence, not a repeat of the first. An accountant can be an excellent professional of the books and, at the same time, entirely unprepared to carry a methodological dispute over the recalculation of a loss, the offsetting of output VAT against input VAT, or the estimated character of an extrapolation. This is not a criticism of the accounting profession, it is a distinction between competences.
It has to be said directly, because it is too often left unsaid: in tax evasion files, the accountant is not always a simple witness. Sometimes he is accused of complicity, that is, of knowingly taking part in someone else's act. Criminal liability is, however, personal, and is established on the basis of actual contribution to the act and of intent, that is, the subjective element.
The distinction is essential. An accountant who recorded documents received, without knowing that the operations were fictitious, is in an entirely different position from one who built the circuit, issued accommodation invoices, or knew of and accepted the fraud. Formal status as an accountant does not, on its own, determine liability; what does is what the person did and knew. This is exactly why how an accountant documents his work, from the outset, matters enormously when the line between “I recorded what I was given” and “I took part” is at issue. The liability of the accountant and the director deserves a standalone discussion, to which we refer.
The accountant is often the first to see the signal. The moments when it is worth telling the client that he needs specialised technical defence, not just accounting:
The notice of tax inspection (aviz de inspecție fiscală) opens a procedure in which the tax base will be at issue. This is the moment for preparation, not for improvising at the first hearing.
Here the stakes escalate quickly, and the risk of a criminal referral is real. Once the inspection has begun, the presence of a specialist who understands both the figures and the procedure changes the dynamic.
It signals that the tax authority has identified a risk and gives the client the chance to correct it before an inspection, but the correction must be technically sound, not a hasty admission.
A refusal to deduct, a reclassification, an estimate. The larger the amount proposed by the inspection, the more the methodology is worth challenging through an expert.
Or on any sign that the tax file is sliding towards criminal proceedings. From that point on, safeguards and tools are triggered that only a lawyer and an expert can put to use.
This is a real service to the client and, as we will see, a protection for the accountant. The party-appointed expert in a tax inspection is more effective the earlier he is brought in.
A particular feature of tax law explains why documentation is not a luxury but the backbone of the defence. Under Article 73 of the Tax Procedure Code, the burden of proof is divided: the taxpayer must prove the acts and facts underlying his returns and any requests made to the tax authority, while the tax authority must give reasons for its administrative tax acts based on evidence or its own findings. In practice, a significant part of the burden falls on the taxpayer, who must justify the reality and lawfulness of the operations.
For the accountant, the consequence is direct. The economic reality of an operation is not presumed in the client's favour, it must be proved with documents. And when documents are missing or weak, not even the best bookkeeping stands in for proof. This is why the compliance file and documenting the source of every entry are not bureaucracy, they are exactly the material with which a dispute before the tax authority or the court is later won.
An accountant's first line of defence is how he works. A few practical rules significantly reduce exposure:
Keep the documents you received, your correspondence with the client, the instructions on which you acted. “I recorded what I was given” is a solid position only if you can prove what you were given and who decided it.
When you flag a risk to the client, an invoice without substance, an unusual operation, a non-deductible expense treated as deductible, do it in writing. A documented warning separates you from the client's decision.
If a client insists on risky or unreal operations, documented distancing and, if needed, ending the engagement, is cheaper than a criminal file. Carrying on “so as not to lose the client” can be the most expensive decision of a career.
NOTE. The most common risk scenario for an honest accountant is not his own act, but a client who concealed the reality from him. The accountant correctly recorded invoices that turned out to be accommodation invoices, filed returns on data he believed to be real, and finds himself questioned because he was, technically, the link through which the fraud passed through the books. His defence starts with documentation made before the file was opened: who gave him the documents, what he flagged, where he drew the line. Reconstructing it after the fact does not carry the same weight, and can make the situation worse.
A natural reflex of the client is to ask his own accountant to “produce an expert report” that dismantles the accusation. It does not work, and you should not agree to it. The expert who produces technical evidence for a court or a tax authority must be independent. An accountant who himself prepared the books now at issue cannot have that independence on the same file, he is part of the situation being examined, not a neutral observer of it. In criminal procedure, the expert's incompatibilities are expressly regulated; beyond the text, an expert report produced by the person who made the disputed entries would lack credibility from the outset.
The accountant's proper role in this triangle is different, and valuable: he knows the history. The independent party-appointed tax expert builds the technical defence; the accountant supplies the context, the documents, the explanation for each operation. The accountant's contribution is indispensable, but as a source of information and of reconstructing the history, not as the author of the independent expert report.
In a serious file, the three work together, each in his own role.
Knows the history: what was recorded, when, on the basis of which documents, with what economic explanation. Without him, reconstructing it takes longer and is incomplete.
Builds the technical defence: recalculates the tax base, identifies errors of method, drafts the objectives for the court-appointed expert report and the observations on the official report.
Argues the law: translates the technical conclusion into a legal argument, handles the nullities and the procedure, pleads the case. The division of roles between lawyer and expert has a logic of its own.
When the collaboration works, the accountant is not sidelined, he becomes the factual memory of the defence, including in the defence in a tax evasion file, where reconstructing the history of the operations often decides the outcome.
The best file is the one that never opens. The accountant has a real preventive role.
In real time: operations without substance, counterparties with a risky profile, weak expenses, before they build up into a problem.
A folder in which the supporting documents, the economic explanations for sensitive operations, and the relevant correspondence are kept in order. At an inspection, this is the difference between answering calmly and improvising.
A preventive tax audit, before an inspection, before a major decision, or when the client enters a risk area.
Not every expert suits every file. For a loss in VAT or corporate income tax, what matters is tax specialisation: a tax adviser registered with CCF (Camera Consultanților Fiscali), the Chamber of Tax Advisers (Ordonanța Guvernului nr. 71/2001), or a certified accountant registered with CECCAR, the Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania (Ordonanța Guvernului nr. 65/1994), depending on the nature of the issue. What matters is the difference between tax expertise and accounting expertise, experience in real disputes rather than only in keeping the books, and the ability to work in step with a lawyer. A good sign is the expert's experience in the pre-trial chamber and in tax litigation, where the methodology is actually debated; a warning sign is a willingness to “guarantee” a result, which no serious expert offers.
For an accounting firm, this is not a lost client, it is an added service. Referring the client to a party-appointed tax expert, at the right moment, protects the client and, equally, the accountant, and a cost benefit analysis of the expert shows why. A stable partnership with a tax adviser turns a moment of crisis into proof of professionalism: the client remembers that his accounting firm knew exactly what to do once the stakes rose.
It depends on the stakes. For a routine inspection, having the documents well prepared may be enough. But on an anti-fraud inspection, a large adjustment, or the first sign of criminal proceedings, specialised technical defence becomes necessary. Flagging the need in time is a service to the client and a protection for you.
Not on the same file. The expert must be independent, and the accountant who prepared the disputed books is part of the situation being examined, not a neutral observer. Your proper role is to supply the history and the documents to the independent expert, an essential contribution, but a different one from producing the expert report.
Through documentation made in good time: keeping the documents received, the correspondence, and any reservations flagged in writing. Criminal liability is personal and is established on actual contribution and on intent. An accountant who recorded, in good faith, documents that appeared genuine is in a different position from one who knew of and accepted the fraud, but the difference has to be capable of proof.
An organised folder in which you keep the supporting documents, the economic explanations for sensitive operations, and the relevant correspondence, updated in real time, not reconstructed once the inspection arrives. It is the simplest preventive tool and, often, the most effective one.
This article is strictly informative and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Individual situations must be assessed on their own facts. Everyone is presumed innocent until a conviction becomes final. 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.