1. Romanian Ordinance no. 31/2022 amending and supplementing Romanian Law no. 207/2015 on the Romanian Fiscal procedure Code

 

  • The Romanian fiscal administrative document issued in electronic form shall be communicated by electronic means of distance transmission, as the case may be, and it shall be considered communicated on the date of making available to the Romanian taxpayer/payer by these means.

 

  • The individual tax solution is the administrative document issued by the Romanian central tax body in order to solve a request of the taxpayer/payer regarding the Regulation of a future tax situation. The application for the issuance of the tax solution is submitted for a single future tax situation and a single main tax obligation. The Romanian taxpayer/payer may submit several applications to regulate several future tax situations. The future tax situation shall be assessed according to the date of application.

 

  • Prior to submitting the application for an individual advance tax solution or for issuing/amending an advance price agreement, the taxpayer/payer may request in writing to the competent tax authority a preliminary discussion for issuing a tax solution, respectively for concluding an agreement or, where applicable, for the purpose of issuing a tax solution. setting the conditions for amending the agreement.

 

2. Romanian Decision no. 272/2022 regarding the rejection of the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 3 paragraph (4) letter a) of Romanian Government Emergency Ordinance no. 74/2013 regarding some measures for improving and reorganizing the activity of the national Romanian Agency for fiscal Administration, as well as for amending and supplementing some normative acts

 

  • In motivating the exception of unconstitutionality, it is argued, in essence, that the criticized provisions are unconstitutional, since the technical-scientific findings, which constitute means of proof under the law, are drawn up by one of the parties to the criminal proceedings, That is to say, by the Romanian anti-fraud inspectors of the Romanian Anti-Fraud Directorate, who are in fact attached to one of the parties, which is contrary to the principle of equality, the right to a fair trial and the right of defense. A genuine inequity is created in the criminal proceedings, as a result of the fact that the prosecutor, who represents the prosecution, and the applicant have the legal possibility of jointly drawing up the finding report on the basis of objectives set unilaterally by the accuser, and the applicant draws up the act which constitutes evidence. The Romanian legislation allows the Romanian prosecution body to create an inequality in the parties’ procedural rights by granting the right of one of the parties to establish the damage, without the other party being able to formulate its defenses.

 

  • Rejects, as unfounded, the exception of unconstitutionality raised and finds that the provisions of Art. 3 para. (4) letter a) Of Romanian Government Emergency Ordinance no. 74/2013 on certain measures for improving and reorganizing the activity of the national Agency for fiscal Administration, as well as for amending and supplementing certain normative documents, are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated.