The draft tax inspection report is the last moment at which you can still influence the outcome of the inspection before it becomes a tax assessment decision, a title of claim (titlu de creanță) that takes effect, is enforced, and can only be challenged on much harsher terms. Here, as of July 2026, is how the mechanism works and how to use it.
Many taxpayers treat this stage as a formality: they sign, file two pages of general grievances or, worse, file nothing at all. That is a strategic mistake, and a costly one.
Throughout the inspection you have the right to be informed of the matters found, and at its close, of the findings and their tax consequences (Article 130(1) of the Tax Procedure Code ('the Tax Procedure Code')). The closing stage, however, is regulated in detail, with precise time limits, and knowing them gives you a real advantage over learning them from the report.
Communication of the draft and the scheduling of the closing discussion. The inspection body is required to send you the draft tax inspection report, in electronic or paper form, together with the date, time and place of the closing discussion (Article 130(2) the Tax Procedure Code). Essential, and little known: the closing discussion cannot be scheduled earlier than 3 working days after the draft is communicated, or 5 working days for large taxpayers. You are therefore guaranteed a minimum interval in which to read the draft before discussing it with the inspection team. Scheduling it “overnight” breaches the statutory text and should be recorded as a procedural defect.
You can waive the closing discussion by written notice (Article 130(3) the Tax Procedure Code), but the decision should be weighed carefully: the date the inspection closes is the date scheduled for the closing discussion, or the date the waiver notice is given (Article 130(4) the Tax Procedure Code), and from that date both the time limit for the written position and the time limit for issuing the tax assessment decision start running. The same date also closes the reckoning of the inspection's lawful duration.
The time limit for the written position: 5 or 7 working days. You have the right to submit, in writing, your position on the inspection body's findings within 5 working days at most of the date the inspection closes; for large taxpayers, the time limit is 7 working days at most. The time limit can be extended for justified reasons, with the agreement of the head of the tax inspection body (Article 130(5) the Tax Procedure Code). Ask for the extension in writing, immediately and with reasons, a large volume of findings, the need for an expert report, obtaining documents from third parties, not on the last day.
The closing discussion is the expression of the right to be heard (Article 9(1) the Tax Procedure Code): before taking its decision, the tax authority is required to give you the opportunity to state your position on the relevant facts and circumstances.
Use it as such: attend with your lawyer and tax adviser, with the list of contested findings and precise questions about the legal grounds and the method of calculation. It is not the setting in which you “negotiate”, but it is the setting in which you find out exactly what each finding rests on, which lets you calibrate the written position. If during the inspection you handed over documents against a schedule, or gave written explanations, now is the time to check how they were used; what you handed over and in what form becomes, at this stage, a matter of evidence.
The right of defence in tax procedures is not a national courtesy, but a principle of European Union law. The CJEU has held that the addressee of a decision adversely affecting them must be able to make their position known before it is adopted (C-349/07 Sopropé, 2008), and that they have a right of access to the material on which the administration bases its decision (C-298/16 Ispas, 2017, a Romanian case, concerning an inspection carried out by ANAF, Romania's national tax administration, itself). On this basis, ask in writing for access to the inspection file whenever the findings refer to information you have never seen.
For each proposed adjustment, extract the period, the tax, the tax base, the legal basis and the reasoning. Number the findings and respond to each one point by point; the structure of your response should mirror that of the draft, so that no criticism can be sidestepped.
Cite the article, paragraph and point of the Tax Code or the Tax Procedure Code, plus the implementing rules, in the form applicable to the period under review, not the current one. A significant share of findings fail on this ground: texts applied retroactively, conditions added to the law, implementing rules ignored.
Contracts, schedules, business correspondence, statements of work, proof of transport, each with an explanation of its relevance to the finding it rebuts. A clear schedule of documents turns the evidence into a usable file, not a heap of paper.
Check the arithmetic of the report: bases counted twice, overlapping periods, wrong rates, VAT collected without a corresponding adjustment to the deductible tax, late-payment charges calculated from the wrong dates. Present your recalculation in parallel tables, the amount in the draft, the correct amount, the difference, the reason. Calculation errors are the easiest to have accepted, because they do not require any change of legal position.
For technical matters, transfer pricing, VAT in supply chains, the recharacterisation of transactions, a report drawn up by an independent tax adviser or accounting expert gives weight to the written position and becomes evidence in the administrative appeal and in court. The cost is, as a rule, marginal compared with the sums at stake.
CJEU judgments, decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) and of the courts of appeal, and decisions resolving administrative appeals, chosen for their identity of issue, not listed for decoration. If you hold a prior written opinion from the tax authority, or a court ruling in your own case, cite them expressly: disregarding them without reasons renders the act void (Article 6(1) read together with Article 49(1)(d) the Tax Procedure Code).
Set out a conclusion for each finding: removal of finding no. X, recalculation of the base for period Y, redoing the calculation of late-payment charges from date Z. A written position without a clear set of requests is easily dismissed, wholesale.
The written position is not an exercise in a vacuum. Under Article 131(2) the Tax Procedure Code, when you have exercised the right under Article 130(5), the tax inspection report must include the inspection body's opinion, reasoned in law and in fact, on the position you expressed. The model report approved by OPANAF nr. 3710/2015 contains a chapter dedicated to the closing discussion, in which the team records the taxpayer's written position and its analysis of it, and the procedure for drawing up, endorsing and approving the report is regulated by OPANAF nr. 4077/2020.
The consequence of a lack of reasoning matters: a report that ignores the written position, or dismisses it with a boilerplate phrase (“the taxpayer's arguments cannot be upheld”), carries the defect over into the tax assessment decision, which adopts the report's findings. In court practice, reasoning that is insufficient or purely formal is treated as no reasoning at all, and a breach of the right to be heard leads to the annulment of the tax administrative act once the taxpayer proves the harm suffered: that if the arguments and evidence had been analysed, the outcome could have been different (Article 49(3) the Tax Procedure Code).
From this follows a practical rule: the more concrete arguments and identifiable evidence the written position contains, the more visible the tax authority's failure to analyse them becomes, and the stronger the ground for annulment. A vague submission cannot be demonstrably “ignored”; a precise one can.
WARNING. Everything you write in the written position stays in the file and can be used against you, including in any criminal file that follows, if the inspection body refers the matter to the criminal investigation bodies (Article 132 the Tax Procedure Code). Wording such as “we admit the error, but had no intention” amounts to an involuntary admission with evidential value. The written position should be drafted with specialist assistance, in technical terms, without self-incrimination.
The written position does not use up any right. Failing to file it does not bar you from challenging the tax assessment decision, and filing it does not limit the grounds you can raise later.
The differences that matter concern timing and recipient. The written position is filed before the final acts are issued and can prevent the findings from becoming fixed; the administrative appeal (Articles 268-270 the Tax Procedure Code) challenges the decision once it has already been issued, within 45 days of communication. The written position is analysed by the same inspection team; the administrative appeal, by the specialised resolution unit.
More importantly, the written position builds the file: evidence filed now exists “from day one”, and the gap between your arguments and the tax authority's boilerplate answer becomes an additional ground for the administrative appeal. Strategically, the written position is the first draft of the future administrative appeal. Whoever writes it superficially loses not only an early chance at correction, but also the coherence of the whole defence: positions that change along the way are easily used against the taxpayer.
The company's difficulties, generic good faith, or “ANAF's abuse” rebut no finding. The tax authority responds to legal arguments and evidence, not to sentiment.
Seemingly harmless phrases, “I knew the document was missing”, “I applied the wrong rate in a hurry”, become evidence of guilt, including in criminal terms.
A written position filed after the 5/7 working days, without an extension, may no longer be analysed in the report. If the time limit is not enough, ask for an extension; do not ignore it.
General criticisms, with no correspondence to the numbered findings, allow the tax authority an equally general dismissal, one that is hard to challenge afterwards.
Ten judgments with no identity of issue dilute the two that matter. Selection is worth more than volume.
It can be tactically useful in limited cases; as a rule, you lose the only opportunity to test the strength of the findings before responding in writing.
After the closing discussion and the analysis of the written position, the team finalises the tax inspection report, which underlies the tax assessment decision, the decision not to amend the tax base, or the decision to amend the tax base (Article 131(4) the Tax Procedure Code). The decision is issued within 25 working days at most of the date the inspection closes (Article 131(5) the Tax Procedure Code) and is communicated under Article 47 the Tax Procedure Code; watch the Spațiul Privat Virtual (SPV), the tax authority's secure online portal, because the 45-day time limit for the administrative appeal, a mandatory prior procedure before going to court, runs from communication.
The administrative appeal does not suspend enforcement. For large amounts, suspension must be requested separately from the administrative court (Articles 14-15 of Legea nr. 554/2004), against payment of a bond, and if the outcome of the inspection is a sum you cannot pay, the timetable for the first 45 days should be planned from day one, together with the options of payment, suspension or a payment schedule.
Two situations change the regime. If, during the inspection, findings are made concerning acts covered by criminal law in relation to the evidence for the tax base, the tax authority refers the matter to the criminal investigation bodies (Article 132 the Tax Procedure Code) and no longer issues a report and decision for those findings; issuing them in that case is sanctioned with nullity (Article 49(1)(g) the Tax Procedure Code). And if ANAF later returns to the same period, doing so is only permitted under the strict conditions of a re-audit or a redone inspection. In both scenarios, also check whether the limitation period has expired for each year covered by the report.
A note for individuals subject to a review of their personal tax position: the mechanism is similar, the tax authority presents its findings, and the individual under review can file a written position within 5 working days at most of the date the conclusions are presented, a written position that is attached to the review report and on which the tax authority is required to rule within the report itself (Article 145(5) the Tax Procedure Code). With the stakes there being the 70% taxation of income from an unidentified source and, often, the data in the wealth and income declaration, the rigour of this stage matters all the more.
No. The administrative appeal remains open within 45 days of the decision being communicated, on any grounds of fact and law. You do, however, lose a stage at which the findings could still have been corrected without litigation, as well as the tactical advantage of a file built early and coherently.
Yes. The time limit (5 working days, 7 for large taxpayers) can be extended for justified reasons, with the agreement of the head of the inspection body (Article 130(5) the Tax Procedure Code). Ask for the extension in writing, immediately after the closing discussion, stating the reasons specifically: the volume of findings, an expert report in progress, documents held by third parties. An unreasoned refusal of a reasonable request should be recorded and raised later.
The report must include the tax authority's opinion, reasoned in law and in fact, on the position you expressed (Article 131(2) the Tax Procedure Code). A blanket, unreasoned dismissal is in practice equivalent to not analysing the written position at all, and is a ground for annulment in the administrative appeal and in court, to the extent the harm is proven. That is why arguments must be individualised and numbered: the more precise they are, the harder they are to sidestep.
No. The closing discussion cannot take place earlier than 3 working days after the draft report is communicated (5 working days for large taxpayers), under Article 130(2) the Tax Procedure Code. Ask in writing for it to be rescheduled, citing the text; if the tax authority refuses, record the defect and raise it in the administrative appeal, together with the harm it caused, the inability to prepare your defence.
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.