In the first part of this material, published on 30 October 2026, we examined the mechanism of Law No. 177/2026, the amnesty through which the state gives up VAT retroactively claimed from taxpayers whose registration code had been cancelled. At that point, it remained unclear what the implementing procedure would actually look like in practice. The answer came late. Although the law set 23 September 2026 as the deadline for ANAF to act, Order No. 1512/2026 approving the procedure was signed only on 2 November and published in Official Gazette No. 923 of 3 November 2026, five weeks behind schedule.
The difference between the two instruments is one of substance, not form: the law establishes what gets cancelled, the order establishes who triggers the cancellation, through which channel, and on the basis of what checks. For an affected taxpayer, it is precisely this level of detail that decides whether and when the amount disappears from the tax ledger, or the money finds its way back into the account.
The Mechanism in Practice: Who Triggers the Cancellation, and Through Which Channel
The order sets out two distinct procedural tracks, depending on how the VAT difference was established. The first track concerns amounts established through a tax audit or a documentary verification applying Article 11(6) or (8) of the Fiscal Code. The tax inspection or anti-fraud authorities draw up, for each taxpayer, a list of the decisions concerned (Annex 1A), with a similar procedure applying to agricultural cooperatives (Annex 1B). The second track corresponds exactly to the mechanism described at length in the first part of this article: ex officio VAT assessment decisions — Form 190, issued under ANAF Order No. 1,399/2024, before the law entered into force (Annex 1C).
For the first track, the order sets a clear deadline: the tax inspection or anti-fraud authority has 45 days from the order’s entry into force, that is, until roughly mid-December 2026, to identify the relevant decisions and compile lists containing, among other things, the taxpayer’s name, the competent tax authority, the number and date of the decision, the additional amount assessed and, where applicable, notes on pending appeals or court proceedings.
For decisions issued following an audit or documentary verification, the procedure further distinguishes between decisions that were or were not communicated to the taxpayer. If communicated, cancellation takes the form of a separate decision (Annex 3). If not communicated, it is never communicated at all, and the amounts are never entered into the analytical records: they disappear, in effect, before becoming enforceable. And where a decision contains, alongside the amounts covered by the law, other findings as well, the tax authority recalculates the figures so that only the portion falling under Law No. 177/2026 is removed.
For the second track — the ex officio assessment decisions, which in practice cover most of the situations described in the first part of this article — the order sets no equivalent deadline. The procedure only lays down the method to be followed by the department responsible for managing tax returns, without imposing a timetable for completing the checks. In practice, the pace at which these decisions are cancelled remains, for now, less predictable than that of decisions issued following an audit.
The Separately-Stated-VAT Test: How ANAF Checks the Exception
The most practically useful element of the order is the clarification of how the exception under paragraph (7) of the law is verified, the one concerning taxpayers who separately stated VAT on invoices or collected it, in whole or in part, from customers. The law set out the principle; the order sets out the method. For ex officio assessment decisions, the relevant department checks, for each tax period concerned, whether VAT was separately stated on the invoices and fiscal receipts issued, using data from the RO e-Factura electronic invoicing system and the RO e-Casă de Marcat national electronic cash register system. Point 5(1) of Annex 1C is explicit:
“Where, for the tax period for which an ex officio assessment decision was issued, the taxpayer separately stated value added tax on all the invoices and/or all the fiscal receipts issued, the amounts established through the ex officio assessment decision shall not be subject to the provisions of Law No. 177/2026.”
The outcome of this check divides taxpayers into three categories. If VAT was separately stated on all documents issued in a given period, the law does not apply to that period, and the ex officio assessment decision retains its effects. If, conversely, VAT was not separately stated on any document, the amount is cancelled in full. The genuinely delicate situation is the mixed one: periods in which the taxpayer sometimes invoiced with VAT and sometimes without. Here, the order requires two separate acts: a decision cancelling the original ex officio assessment decision, followed by a new ex officio assessment decision, this time limited solely to the transactions for which VAT was separately invoiced. The amounts relating to VAT-free invoices disappear, while those relating to invoices with VAT separately stated remain due, under a new act.
For the taxpayer, the practical takeaway remains the one already flagged in the first part of this article, but now rests on a clear technical basis: any assessment of the chances of cancellation or refund must start from the taxpayer’s own invoices and receipts issued during the relevant period, not from the assumption that cancellation of the VAT code automatically wipes out the entire claim. Through RO e-Factura, ANAF now has a quick tool for verifying this, which the taxpayer should use themselves, before filing any request.
The Documents the Taxpayer Receives
The order also approves the forms used in the procedure. The decision cancelling tax obligations (Annex 3) sets out, for each title of claim concerned, the nature of the amount (principal debt, interest, late-payment penalty or non-declaration penalty) and the amount cancelled. The form expressly states the right of appeal:
“This decision may be challenged by way of an appeal, under Articles 268 and 269 of Law No. 207/2015 on the Tax Procedure Code, as subsequently amended and supplemented, within the time limit set by Article 270 of the same act, on pain of forfeiture.”
It may seem paradoxical to challenge a decision that cancels a debt, but doing so makes practical sense where the cancellation does not fully cover the amounts recorded in the taxpayer’s ledger, or wrongly treats an amount as falling under the exception in paragraph (7).
The refund request (Annex 4) remains the act the taxpayer must complete and register with the tax authority, for amounts already paid. The form expressly confirms what we had already flagged in the first part of this article: from the amount to be refunded, the central tax authority may set off any outstanding tax or budgetary obligations existing on the date of the refund. The taxpayer may choose to have the refund paid into a bank account or in cash, at a State Treasury counter. If, upon verification, the taxpayer does not appear on the lists drawn up by the tax authority, the records department asks the authority that issued the assessment decision to confirm whether the conditions of the law are met, an additional step that can extend the time needed to resolve the request.
Four Dates Worth Remembering
For any interested taxpayer:
- 27 August 2026: the date from which the limitation period for refund requests runs, not the date of payment;
- 3 November 2026: the date Order No. 1512/2026 entered into force;
- mid-December 2026: the 45-day deadline by which the lists relating to decisions issued following a tax audit or documentary verification, and to agricultural cooperatives, must be finalised;
- 45 days from communication of the cancellation decision: the time limit within which it can be challenged, where the cancelled amount does not match what is actually owed.
For ex officio assessment decisions, which cover most situations, the order sets no equivalent deadline, for now.
In Lieu of a Conclusion
Order No. 1512/2026 does not change the substance of the amnesty. It confirms, in broad terms, the mechanism already described in Law No. 177/2026. Its value lies in the procedural detail: the distinction between the two cancellation tracks, the method for verifying the exception concerning separately invoiced VAT, and the forms taxpayers find in their own files. One gap remains, however, that the text does not cover: the time within which the review of ex officio assessment decisions is completed, which is precisely the track concerning most of the taxpayers the law is meant to help.
For taxpayers who were waiting for clarification before acting, it exists now, at least in part. Reviewing accounting and tax documents issued between 2019 and 2026 (invoices, fiscal receipts, etc.), gathering proof of payment and, where applicable, filing the refund request no longer depend on a piece of legislation yet to appear. They depend only on the diligence with which each request is prepared.
This article has been prepared, for the Blog of Costaș, Negru & Asociații, by Mrs. Lia Pricope.
Costaș, Negru & Asociații is a law firm with offices in Cluj-Napoca, Bucharest, and Arad, providing legal assistance, representation, and consultancy across various practice areas through a team of 16 lawyers and consultants. Details regarding the legal services offered and the team composition can be found on the website https://www.costas-negru.ro. All rights to materials published on the firm’s website and via social media belong to Costaș, Negru & Asociații; reproduction of these materials is permitted solely for informational purposes and subject to correct and complete citation of the source.
