The expert report has been filed, and the conclusions are against you. The natural reflex is a single sentence: “we do not agree with the expert's conclusions.” In procedural language, that sentence produces no effect. The court responds to a technical objection, filed on time and well founded, not to dissatisfaction. The difference decides whether the report stays the central piece of evidence or is sent back for correction.
Objections are a party's technical challenge to a court-appointed expert report (expertiză judiciară): the procedural means by which the party shows the court or the judicial body that the report is unclear, incomplete, methodologically wrong, or built on erroneous data, and asks either for it to be corrected or for a new expert report. They are the instrument through which the work of the party-appointed tax expert is put to use in the proceedings.
In civil proceedings, and therefore in tax litigation too, which is judged under the rules of civil procedure, the mechanism sits in Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under the heading “Clarifying or completing the report.” If the report remains unclear, insufficiently reasoned, or if there are contradictions between the experts' opinions, the court, of its own motion or at the party's request, may ask the expert to clarify or complete it. Objections are the vehicle through which the party triggers this request: it does not object “in general,” it states precisely what needs clarifying, why, and on what basis. When the defects are more serious, the same objections open the way to a new expert report, under Article 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We discuss the role of the court-appointed expert report as evidence at length in evidence in tax litigation.
In criminal proceedings, including tax evasion files, the architecture differs in form but is identical in logic. Once the expert report (Article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) has been communicated, the parties and the main procedural subjects may ask for the expert to be heard (Article 179), for a supplementary expert report carried out, as a rule, by the same expert (Article 180), or for a new expert report carried out by a different expert (Article 181). Objections are the technical argument on which these requests rest. When the party has had the benefit of a recommended expert (Article 173(4)), that expert takes part in carrying out the report and helps identify defects from the working stage itself, not only after the report is filed, when the procedural window has narrowed.
The most common reason a good objection is lost is the calendar, not the substance. Time limits are short and, in civil proceedings, are subject to forfeiture of the right. The expert report is filed with the case at least 10 days before the hearing date (Article 336(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure), precisely so that the parties have time to study it. Objections must be filed, on pain of forfeiture, at the first hearing after the report is filed, usually at the special hearing the court sets for that purpose. A new expert report, if warranted, must be requested with reasons, again on pain of forfeiture, at the first hearing after the report is filed or, if objections were filed, at the hearing immediately following the expert's response or the supplementary report (Article 338).
In criminal proceedings, objections are filed after the report is communicated, and the request for a supplementary or a new expert report is addressed to the criminal investigation body or to the court. In tax evasion files, Article 10(2) of Legea nr. 241/2005 (as amended by Legea nr. 126/2024) expressly provides for the suspect's or defendant's right to take part in the specialist expert report that determines the loss, by reference to the rules in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This right is exercised effectively only if the party is informed in good time and prepares his objectives and his recommended expert before the report is finalised.
NOTE. Forfeiting the right to file objections is not a formality that can be repaired on appeal. In civil proceedings, if at the set hearing the party stays silent or simply says “we do not agree,” the court may base its decision on the uncontested report, and on appeal late objections can no longer be relied on as such. In practice, a flawed expert report left unchallenged at the hearing becomes winning evidence for the opposing party. Whoever receives the report usually has days, not weeks, to analyse it technically. The party-appointed expert's analysis must be commissioned on the day the report is filed, not at the hearing.
A good objection attacks an identifiable defect, not an inconvenient conclusion. In the practice of court-appointed tax and accounting expert reports, defects fall into five categories, and a serious party knows which of them it is relying on.
The expert applied a methodology that was wrong or unsuited to the objective: he estimated the taxable base by indirect methods where the books existed and allowed a direct calculation, used an unsuitable reconstruction method, or ignored an applicable technical standard. This is the strongest kind of objection, it strikes at the foundation of the report.
Erroneous input data. The method may be correct, but the data fed into it is wrong: balances carried over incorrectly, a period longer than the legal one, an unsuitable exchange rate, sums counted twice, operations included that are unrelated to the objective. A false result follows from a false input.
The expert ignored documents on the case file: invoices, contracts, statements, accounting notes that change the result. The professional standard requires him to take account of the relevant supporting documents; leaving them out is a defect, not a choice.
The expert answered outside his specialisation, a certified accountant settled a question of tax classification, or the reverse, or he made legal assessments, which is exclusively for the court. The expert clarifies technical facts; he does not say who is right in law.
The expert did not answer the objective set, or answered a different question. A report that “sidesteps” the objective, answers a more convenient version of it, leaves an objective without a firm conclusion, or states equivocal conclusions, is incomplete and must be completed.
The difference between an objection that moves the file and one that gets ignored is not a matter of tone, it is a matter of structure. The drafting rules are few and firm.
Not “the report is wrong,” but “on objective no. 2, the expert calculated the taxable base for period X to Y, although the legal period is Z; recalculating gives…” Each objection states the page, the objective, and the operation at issue.
A good objection cites both the technical rule that was breached (a method, a standard, a calculation convention) and the applicable legal text. Without a basis, an objection remains an opinion.
The most effective objection does not just criticise, it shows the correct result: “proceeding correctly, the loss/the taxable base is …, according to the calculation attached.” A verifiable counter-calculation forces the expert and the court to engage with a concrete alternative.
The question of whether the act constitutes an offence is not settled through an expert report. An objection must stay on technical ground: figures, method, documents.
Ask for clarification where the report is unclear, for completion where it is incomplete, and reserve the request for a new expert report for substantive defects that a supplement cannot remedy.
This is where the party-appointed expert comes in. He reads the report with a specialist's eye, identifies the technical defects, redoes the calculations, and drafts the substance of the objections. In civil proceedings, he may take part in the expert report as the party's advisor (consilier al părții) (Article 330(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure) and may prepare a separate report on the objectives; in criminal proceedings, as the party's recommended expert (expert recomandat) (Article 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The lawyer then takes the technical material and places it procedurally, at the right hearing, in the form the law requires.
The judicial body's response can take three forms. The first: the expert responds to the objections and files a supplement, clarifying or completing the report, sometimes correcting exactly the error flagged, which amounts to a partial win. The second: if the defects are substantive and cannot be remedied by a supplement, the court orders a new expert report (a counter-expert report) (Article 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), carried out by a different expert or, in criminal proceedings, by a commission or a specialist institute. The third: the court rejects the objections as unfounded and adopts the report. This is exactly why the quality of the objections is decisive, they are the only thing that pushes the file towards the first two outcomes.
In tax and tax related criminal files, a few defects come up regularly and, correctly attacked, overturn the result. I describe them as a mechanism, not as a recipe.
If the expert treats the entire unrecorded income as the loss, without deducting the expenses incurred to produce it, he overstates the corporate income tax due. An objection of method that demands the correct tax base can substantially reduce the amount.
Treating a sum as the VAT base while, at the same time, ignoring that the price received already included VAT leads to double counting. This is an objection to the calculation base, arithmetically verifiable.
Extending the calculation beyond the limitation period (prescripție) for establishing the tax claim artificially inflates the base. This objection combines the technical basis with the legal one.
Invoices, loan agreements, evidence of real expenses, present on the file but not taken into account, change the result. This is the classic objection of completeness.
An objection that starts with “the expert was biased” and continues with grievances without figures is, in practice, a gift to the opposing party, it confirms that the report cannot be rebutted technically. Likewise, objections that challenge “everything,” without ranking them, dilute the good arguments among the weak ones. A serious party picks three or four solid defects, documents them impeccably, and backs them with a counter-calculation, rather than filing ten generic objections that the court can reject as a block.
In a file with real stakes, the objections are written by two people together. The party-appointed expert identifies the technical defects, reconstructs the correct calculation, and drafts the substance. The lawyer places it procedurally: checks the time limit and the forfeiture sanction, drafts the request in the right procedural language, distinguishes it, as the case may be, between clarification, completion, and a new expert report, and argues it at the hearing. Without an expert, the lawyer objects “on instinct” and risks missing exactly the decisive defect; without a lawyer, the expert drafts a technically correct memorandum that is filed badly or too late. Dividing the roles between the lawyer and the party-appointed expert is not a luxury, it is the condition for an objection to have any effect.
Following Decision no. 430/2025 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție), delivered by its panel for resolving points of law in criminal matters, in tax evasion files the loss must be established through a specialist expert report, and failing to prepare one makes the indictment irregular and sends the case back to the prosecutor. The consequence for the defence is direct: the expert report has become the central piece of the prosecution's case, and therefore the main ground for the defence too. Objections that dismantle the method used to calculate the loss, the period, the tax base, the double counting, the documents ignored, no longer attack a mere detail, they attack the foundation of the prosecution's case. An objection of method that brings the loss below a statutory threshold can change the legal classification of the act and the sentencing regime. Here, a few pages of well built technical objections are worth more than any closing speech.
Yes. The right to file objections belongs to the party regardless of whether he had an advisor or a recommended expert along the way. In practice, however, without your own technical analysis, objections risk staying general. That is why, even without a party-appointed expert during the proceedings, it is worth commissioning an analysis of the report immediately after it is filed, so as to file well founded objections and, where possible, a counter-calculation.
It depends on the reason and the stage. Rejecting the objections does not, by itself, close off the possibility of asking for a new expert report for well founded reasons, if the time limit still allows it. On appeal, the way the court dealt with pertinent objections can be criticised, but the ground is narrower than before the first instance court, one more reason to file the objections completely and on time.
A supplement clarifies or completes the existing report and is carried out, as a rule, by the same expert; it is used when the report is unclear or incomplete, but reparable. A new expert report is ordered for substantive defects, which a supplement cannot remedy, and is entrusted to a different expert (or a commission or institute, in criminal proceedings). Well built objections decide which of the two the court moves towards.
Not directly, the official expert remains independent. What the party-appointed expert can do is build objections and a counter-calculation solid enough that the official expert is compelled, in the supplement, to correct the error, or that the court orders a new expert report. The pressure is not personal, it is technical: the force of a verifiable argument.
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.