Tax audit Romania: what an ANAF inspection is and how it starts
A tax audit in Romania is a formal procedure under the Fiscal Procedure Code, not an open-ended enquiry. ANAF verifies how a taxpayer established and paid a specific tax over specific periods, and the whole exercise has to move through a defined sequence: a written notice of inspection, the verification itself, a final discussion on the findings, the tax inspection report (RIF), and, where amounts are found due, a tax assessment decision.
Three different things are often called an audit in English, and they have different rules. A tax inspection is the full procedure described above. A documentary verification is a lighter check run from the tax office on the basis of documents and data already held. An anti-fraud check is an unannounced operational control. Knowing which one you are in decides what rights you have and what the outcome can be, which is why the first thing we ask for is the document that opened the procedure.
The consolidated text of the Fiscal Procedure Code is published by ANAF, and the administrative guidance sits with ANAF.
Who gets inspected, and why
Selection is far less arbitrary than it was ten years ago, because ANAF now holds the data to select on. The declarations are cross-checked against each other automatically: the VAT return against the domestic transactions report, the transaction listing against what your counterparties declared, and both against the ledger reported through SAF-T and the invoices that passed through RO e-Factura.
The recurring triggers, in the order we see them:
- a VAT refund request, which brings a verification with it as a matter of course;
- discrepancies between filings — the same period reported differently in two returns;
- counterparty mismatches, including purchases from a taxpayer later declared inactive;
- loss positions repeated over several years, or margins that move sharply without an obvious cause;
- transactions with related parties, where transfer pricing documentation is requested;
- sector campaigns, where a whole activity is reviewed in a period.
None of these is an accusation. All of them are reasons to have the file ready before the notice arrives.
How the inspection runs
| Stage | What happens | What matters for you |
|---|---|---|
| Notice of inspection | Written notice stating the taxes and periods verified, communicated in advance | Check the scope; the inspection may not silently widen beyond it |
| Verification | Requests for documents and explanations, at your premises or at the tax office | Answer in writing, keep a record of everything handed over |
| Final discussion | The inspectors present the draft findings and you may state your position | This is where a wrong finding is cheapest to correct |
| RIF | The tax inspection report, with the findings and the reasoning | The document the whole later dispute is argued against |
| Assessment decision | The enforceable act, where additional amounts are established | Starts the 45-day appeal term from its communication |
The Code also limits how long an inspection may last, with different caps depending on the taxpayer category, and it sets the advance notice period. Both are usually stated in the notice itself; where they are not, they are worth checking against the Code for the period concerned, since these terms have been amended more than once.
The final discussion is the stage most companies underuse. It is a genuine opportunity to put a document or an argument in front of the inspection team while the report is still a draft. A point conceded in writing there rarely survives into the report. The same point raised for the first time in an appeal has to overcome a reasoned finding.
- 30 / 15 daysThe audit notice30 days ahead for large taxpayers, 15 days for everyone else (art. 122 of the Fiscal Procedure Code).
- 180 · 90 · 45How long the audit runsDays, by taxpayer category: large, medium, the rest (art. 126).
- 5 / 7 work. daysYour written positionSubmitted in writing from the end of the audit; 7 working days for large taxpayers (art. 130).
- serviceReport and assessmentThe audit report and the tax assessment decision are served together.
- 45 daysThe appealFrom the service of the act, on pain of forfeiture (art. 270).
An appeal does not suspend enforcement; suspension is requested separately, under art. 278 of the Fiscal Procedure Code. The 45-day term does not stretch because you are waiting for an answer to a letter.
What the RIF contains
The tax inspection report sets out, period by period and tax by tax, what was verified, what was found, the legal basis for each finding and the calculation of any additional amounts. It records the taxpayer’s stated position and the inspectors’ answer to it.
Two things follow from that. First, the RIF is where the reasoning lives; the assessment decision is largely a figure. Second, an appeal is only as good as its engagement with that reasoning. An appeal that restates the company’s original position without addressing the argument in the report gives the settlement structure nothing to work with.
Where the inspection finds nothing to change, it closes with a decision confirming that the tax base is not modified. That document is worth keeping: it fixes what has already been verified.
The appeal: 45 days from communication
The administrative appeal is filed with the authority that issued the act, within 45 days from the communication of the act, under article 270 of the Fiscal Procedure Code. The term is one of forfeiture: an appeal lodged after it is normally rejected as late, without the substance being examined. What starts the clock is the communication, not the date printed on the decision, so the proof of communication is part of the file from day one. The term applicable to the specific act is also stated in the act itself, and that statement should be read rather than assumed.
Three practical points decide more appeals than the legal argument does:
- Filing the appeal does not suspend enforcement. Suspension is requested separately from the administrative court, under the law on administrative litigation, and normally against a bond calculated on the contested amount. Between the assessment and the suspension, ANAF may take enforcement measures.
- The appeal is examined by a specialised settlement structure within the tax administration, not by the inspectors. The decision on the appeal may accept it fully, partially, or reject it, and it may also annul the act and order the verification to be redone.
- The court comes next, within the term stated in the decision on the appeal. Administrative litigation is the first stage where the file is judged by someone outside the tax administration, and a good part of what we do at the appeal stage is building a record that will hold there.
How we handle inspections and appeals
We come in at whatever point you call, but the earlier the better — before the final discussion is worth several times the same effort after the decision.
During the inspection. We take over the technical dialogue. Requests for information are answered in writing, with the supporting documents indexed. Where a finding is forming, we put the legal position in front of the team while it can still change the draft. We attend the final discussion and file the written point of view.
After the report. We quantify the exposure honestly, including the interest and penalties running per day, and we say which findings are worth contesting and which are not. Not every assessment should be appealed; an appeal with no substance costs time and leaves the debt accruing.
The appeal itself. Drafted against the reasoning in the RIF, article by article, with the case law and administrative practice that support the position, and with the file organised so that the administrative court can use it later without reconstruction.
The file is prepared and reviewed by our tax consultants, licensed by the Romanian Chamber of Tax Consultants (CCF) and members of CECCAR and ACCA, with more than 20 years of practice. Communication is in English, Italian or Romanian, directly with the person writing the submissions. The broader advisory context is on the tax advisory page.
Specific situations
Non-resident companies. A company established abroad with only a Romanian VAT number is inspected on its Romanian VAT position. The difficulty is rarely the law; it is that the supporting documents sit in a foreign ERP, in another language, and have to be produced in a form a Romanian inspector can verify. We handle that reconstruction, and the underlying obligations are described in the guide to VAT in Romania for foreign companies.
VAT refund verifications. A refund claim brings its own check. The questions concentrate on the substance of the purchases, the evidence for zero-rating intra-Community supplies, and the status of the suppliers. Preparing the refund file to be read by an inspector, rather than merely filed, shortens the process.
Withholding tax on payments abroad. Payments to non-residents are a standing inspection theme: whether the residency certificate existed at the time of payment, how the payment was characterised, and whether it was reported. The regime is set out on the page about withholding tax on non-resident income.
Periods with a previous provider. Where the inspection covers years handled by someone else, the first task is to establish what was actually filed and what supports it, before any position is taken.
The mistakes that cost the most
- Answering verbally. An explanation given in conversation reappears in the report as a summary written by someone else.
- Handing over documents without a record of what was given and when, so the file cannot be reconstructed later.
- Missing the final discussion, or attending it without a written position.
- Counting the 45 days from the wrong date, or assuming the term runs from when the decision was read rather than from communication.
- Assuming the appeal suspends the debt, and discovering enforcement while the appeal is pending.
- Appealing everything, including findings that are correct, which weakens the credibility of the points that matter.
- Correcting nothing for the periods after the inspection, so the same finding is repeated at the next audit with a longer history behind it.
