A Supreme Court of Justice decision provides an interpretation that will help determine whether a course of conduct represents tax evasion as defined under art. 9 par. (1) ( c) of the Law no. 241/2005 for the Prevention and Combating of Tax Evasion, which establishes the regulations governing tax evasion and in conjunction with the forgery of the documents under private signature. The documents under private signature are the documents that are not official.
The question before the court concerned the legal classification of the act of recording, in accounting or other legal documents, charges which are not based on real transactions and the recording of other fictitious operations to avoid tax obligations.
Court held that the act of recording in accounting documents or in other legal documents charges that are not based on real operations or recording other fictitious operations by using counterfeit fiscal invoices and tax receipts to avoid tax obligations qualifies as tax evasion under art. 9 par. (1) (c) of Law no. 241/2005 for the Prevention and Combating of Tax Evasion. In other words, the Supreme Court decided that avoiding tax obligations by counterfeiting the invoices and tax receipts is a form of tax evasion.
Decision no. 21/2017 was published in the Official Gazette on 27 December 2017.