You receive an inspection notice for 2019 and 2020. The first reaction is almost always to go looking for old bank statements. The right question, though, is a different one, and it must be asked before anything else: does ANAF still have, at this date, the right to establish tax obligations for those years?
The tax limitation period extinguishes the tax authority's right to still establish claims for periods that have become too remote, a guarantee of legal certainty without which any taxpayer would live forever under the threat of recalculation.
Precisely because it limits the power of the administration, the limitation period is the ground for some of the most frequent disputes: when the term starts running, what interrupts it, what suspends it, and when the extended 10-year term applies.
Calculation mistakes go both ways: some people pay amounts that ANAF could no longer establish, others believe they are “off the hook” when the term was in fact suspended or interrupted in the meantime.
Under Article 110 of the Tax Procedure Code (Legea nr. 207/2015), the tax authority's right to establish tax claims becomes time-barred after 5 years, a term that starts running from 1 July of the year following the year for which the tax obligation is owed, unless the law provides otherwise.
The reference point is the year for which the tax is owed, not the year in which the return was filed. A concrete example: for income earned in 2021, the term started running on 1 July 2022 and expires on 1 July 2027. For income earned in 2020, the term ran from 1 July 2021 and expired on 1 July 2026, so, at the date of this article, the 2020 tax year has, in principle, fallen outside the period in which ANAF can still issue tax assessment decisions, subject to the interruptions, suspensions and the special 10-year term discussed below.
As a rough guide, in mid-July 2026: the years 2020 and earlier are time-barred; the years 2021 to 2025 can still be checked. This is, however, a rule-of-thumb calculation, to be redone for each case, obligation by obligation.
For claims relating to periods before 2016, the old Tax Procedure Code (OG nr. 92/2003) applies, under which the 5-year term ran from 1 January of the year following the year in which the claim arose. For years, ANAF interpreted this text to mean that the term only started running from the year after the return was filed, effectively adding a whole extra year of “life” to tax claims.
This practice was overturned by Decision no. 21/2020 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ), given on an appeal in the interest of the law on 14 September 2020 and published in Monitorul Oficial nr. 1257 of 18 December 2020: for corporate income tax, the limitation period runs from 1 January of the year following the year in which the taxable profit was earned. The ruling is binding on the courts, and its reasoning, that the reference point is the year the income was earned, not the year it was declared, is also relied on in practice for other taxes established through self-assessment.
Article 110 of the Tax Procedure Code provides for a 10-year term where tax claims “result from the commission of an act provided for by criminal law”. The text is often invoked by the tax authority to bring back into play periods that would otherwise be time-barred, but the real conditions are strict.
The 10-year term runs from the date of the act “that constitutes an offence penalised as such by a final court judgment”. The law ties the extended term to an offence established by a final judicial decision, not to a suspicion, not to a criminal referral made by the tax authority itself, and not to a file still pending before the prosecutor's office.
Legal commentary and case law have struck down the extension of the term to 10 years in the absence of a final judgment: otherwise, the tax authority would be extending its own right to establish claims, through its own referral.
In practice: if you are notified of an inspection for periods older than 5 years on the grounds of “criminal indications”, ask in writing for the exact legal basis and check whether there is a final court judgment establishing the offence. The distinction between “an act provided for by criminal law” and “an offence penalised by a final judgment” is, here, the whole of the defence.
These are two entirely different mechanisms, and confusing them is the source of most miscalculations. Interruption wipes out the time already elapsed and starts a full new 5-year term. Suspension merely stops the term running for the duration of an event, after which the term resumes, adding to the period already elapsed.
Filing of the tax return by the taxpayer after the statutory filing deadline interrupts the limitation period (Article 111(1) of the Tax Procedure Code).
The date on which the taxpayer corrects the tax return or performs another voluntary act acknowledging the claim. This is the main practical trap.
The general-law cases and conditions for interrupting the limitation period for the right of action.
The period between the start of the tax inspection or the review of an individual's personal tax situation and the issuing of the tax assessment decision, but only “provided the statutory duration” of the inspection is respected, a condition introduced by Legea nr. 295/2020.
For as long as the taxpayer avoids the tax inspection.
For the period between the taxpayer being declared inactive and being reactivated.
A “voluntary” corrective return resets the clock. Filing a corrective return, for example, in response to a compliance notice (notificare de conformare) received under Article 140¹ of the Tax Procedure Code, is a voluntary act of acknowledgement that interrupts the limitation period and opens a new 5-year term for the differences acknowledged. Sometimes compliance is the right answer; other times you end up correcting exactly the claims the tax authority could no longer establish. Assess the limitation period, obligation by obligation, before signing, not after.
The statutory-duration condition is essential to the defence. The duration of the tax inspection is capped by Article 126 of the Tax Procedure Code (in principle 45 days for small taxpayers, 90 for medium ones, 180 for large taxpayers and non-residents), and the review of an individual's personal tax situation cannot exceed 270 days (Article 140). An inspection that runs over these limits no longer benefits from the suspensive effect on the limitation period, and the courts have recently gone further, striking down as null tax assessment decisions issued after the 270-day limit for the review of individuals had expired. The chronology of the inspection, its start, suspensions, the date the decision was issued, must be reconstructed document by document.
Once the title of claim is issued, a second limitation period starts running: the tax authority's right to seek enforcement becomes time-barred after 5 years from 1 January of the year following the year in which that right arose (Article 215 of the Tax Procedure Code; the term also applies to administrative fines).
Why, then, do tax debts almost never “die” on their own? Because Article 217 provides for generous grounds of interruption: any enforcement act (payment demand (somație), garnishment (poprire), seizure), any voluntary payment or acknowledgement of the debt, communication of the insolvency report, each one restarts the term. In turn, Article 216 suspends the term for as long as enforcement is suspended by law or by a court, including for the duration of payment rescheduling arrangements, worth noting for those on an instalment plan, an area recently reshaped by Legea nr. 239/2025.
Two practical consequences: first, check the legality of the communication of each enforcement act, acts not lawfully communicated do not produce an interrupting effect; second, keep in mind that amounts paid after the limitation period has expired are not refunded, being treated as validly paid. Against enforcement started for time-barred claims there is the appeal against enforcement (contestație la executare), filed with the local court within 15 days (Articles 260 to 261 of the Tax Procedure Code).
It must be checked, proven and raised. The sensible order of work is as follows.
The notice of tax inspection (aviz de inspecție fiscală) or review notice must state the period under review. If the wording is vague, ask for it to be clarified in writing.
For each obligation: the start date (1 July of the following year, or 1 January for older periods, in light of ÎCCJ Decision no. 21/2020), any interruptions (late returns, corrective returns, acknowledgements) and suspensions (the duration of earlier inspections, checking whether the statutory duration was respected).
In your response to the draft tax inspection report and at the closing discussion. If the tax authority finds that the term has expired, it must stop the procedure for issuing the title of claim (Article 112 of the Tax Procedure Code).
Within 45 days of communication (Articles 268 to 270 of the Tax Procedure Code), raising the limitation period as a distinct, documented ground. Bear in mind that a mere appeal (contestație) does not suspend enforcement; suspension must be sought separately from the court, under Articles 14 to 15 of Legea nr. 554/2004, with payment of the security calculated under Article 278 of the Tax Procedure Code.
The action for annulment is heard by the tribunal or, for claims above 3,000,000 lei, by the court of appeal. Prove the chronology with documents: acknowledgements of receipt, service orders, decisions suspending the inspection.
The limitation of enforcement is raised by way of an appeal against enforcement, within the 15-day term. This is a separate term from that of the tax appeal.
No. Signing to acknowledge receipt of the inspection report or of the minutes is not an act acknowledging the debt. By contrast, a corrective return or a “test” payment has exactly this effect.
Criminal time limits (Article 154 et seq. of the Criminal Code) run and are interrupted under their own rules. Discontinuing a criminal file does not “time-bar” the tax claim, and the tax claim becoming time-barred does not prevent the criminal proceedings; the only bridge is the 10-year tax term, conditional on a final judgment.
These are two successive terms, with different rules; together, they can cover more than a decade. The fact that a claim was established within the term does not mean that enforcing it is still possible, and the reverse is also true.
Once paid, they are not refunded. Checking the limitation period must come before any significant payment to the budget for old periods.
For individuals, the review of personal tax situation (Articles 138 to 147 of the Tax Procedure Code) is triggered following a risk analysis, where the difference between declared income and the estimated tax situation exceeds 10% of declared income, but not less than 50,000 lei. Before the review, the taxpayer receives a compliance notice (notificare de conformare) and has 30 days to provide clarifications, and the review itself cannot exceed 270 days.
The period subject to review remains limited by the limitation period: in 2026, this means, as a rule, the years for which the 5-year term has not yet expired. The limit is worth defending actively, because the volume of data available to ANAF is unprecedented: foreign accounts reported through the automatic CRS exchange, data on crypto-assets and platforms brought by DAC8 (transposed by OUG nr. 71/2025), plus the new tax regime for crypto-assets under Legea nr. 239/2025. Historical data can feed the risk analysis, but obligations can still only be established for the period not yet time-barred, apart from the strictly conditional 10-year term.
Since 6 July 2026, the review of an individual's personal tax situation can also be carried out by inspectors of the Anti-Fraud Directorate General (OPANAF nr. 768/2026, Monitorul Oficial nr. 553 of 6 July 2026), including the application of the 70% tax on income from unidentified sources. The more powerful the tools of control become, the more discipline in calculating the limitation period, on the taxpayer's side, matters. The same discipline applies to the retroactive recharacterisation of an activity, where the recalculated period cannot exceed the years not yet time-barred.
As a rule, the years for which the 5-year term has not yet expired: for obligations relating to 2021, the term runs from 1 July 2022 and expires on 1 July 2027, so the years 2021 to 2025 can, in principle, still be checked, while 2020 and earlier years are time-barred. The calculation must, however, be redone individually: interruptions, suspensions and the 10-year term can materially change the result.
No. Signing to acknowledge receipt, with or without objections, does not amount to voluntary acknowledgement of the claim. Only the acts listed in Article 111(1) of the Tax Procedure Code interrupt the limitation period, in particular late-filed returns, corrective returns and voluntary acknowledgements, including payments.
Not on the basis of a mere suspicion. The 10-year term under Article 110 of the Tax Procedure Code requires a criminal act, and the law ties its running to an offence “penalised as such by a final court judgment”. Extending the period reviewed solely on the basis of a pending criminal referral is open to challenge and has been struck down in practice.
Rarely. The limitation of enforcement (5 years from 1 January of the following year) is interrupted by every lawfully communicated enforcement act, and by any payment or acknowledgement. Old debts must be examined act by act, the enforcement acts lawfully communicated, the time elapsed between them, and the point is raised by way of an appeal against enforcement, within 15 days.
It is interrupted for the corrected claim and a full new 5-year term starts running. A corrective return is a voluntary act of acknowledgement. This is why the limitation period must be assessed before filing the corrective return or responding to a compliance notice, not after.
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.