Relevance of the Case on Challenging Fiscal Enforcement
For the income earned, the taxpayer is obligated to pay the taxes, fees, and contributions due to the state budget. Otherwise, based on a tax debt title, which subsequently becomes an enforceable fiscal title, any amounts representing income and monetary assets in both local and foreign currency, securities, or other intangible movable assets held and/or owed by third parties to the debtor—either currently or in the future under existing legal relationships—are subject to enforced collection through garnishment.
It is imperative that enforced collection is carried out in accordance with the applicable legal provisions in fiscal matters, strictly following the regulated procedure. If the taxpayer has doubts regarding the legality and correctness of the enforcement, it is crucial, immediately after the commencement of enforcement, to consult a lawyer to verify the legality of the procedure and, if necessary, submit a challenge before the court in case the legal provisions have been violated. The deadline for challenging an enforcement procedure is 15 days from the date the debtor party became aware of the enforcement or the act of enforcement being challenged, either from the communication of the summons or another received notice or, in their absence, at the time of enforcement.
Of course, enforced collection can only take place based on a valid enforceable title. It is particularly important to understand that if a fiscal claim title has been issued and was not challenged within the legally prescribed period, the grounds for contesting it at the enforcement stage are limited. Thus, an enforcement challenge cannot raise arguments that could have been invoked against the tax claim title through specific challenge procedures (an administrative appeal followed by the annulment of the fiscal administrative act).
Case Summary – Enforcement Initiated by ANAF
In this case, the petitioner, represented by a lawyer specializing in challenging enforcements of fiscal debts, is the sole associate and administrator of an IT company. Between the petitioner’s company and a Belgian company, a series of contracts were concluded under which specific services in the field—custom software development (client-oriented software)—were provided.
In 2022, a garnishment was imposed on the petitioner’s personal account to recover the amount allegedly owed to ANAF, following a procedure initiated by the tax authority to establish ex officio the tax obligations due by individuals for income earned abroad.
Litigation Before the Cluj-Napoca Court
Through the enforcement challenge, the petitioner, represented by Cluj-based law firm Brisc Legal, requested the annulment of the garnishment in the enforcement case. He argued that all due taxes, fees, and contributions for the income generated by the company through its collaboration with the Belgian company had been fully paid to the state budget.
Furthermore, he claimed that the tax claim title based on which the garnishment was imposed had not been communicated to him. Moreover, he asserted that he had not earned any foreign income as an individual, making the procedure for determining ex officio tax obligations for income earned abroad inapplicable to his situation.
Assisted by the legal team at Brisc Legal lawyers from Cluj, specializing in tax litigation, the petitioner informed the court that he had challenged the 2019 and 2020 tax assessment decisions through an administrative appeal. As a result of this appeal, where the petitioner was also assisted by Brisc Legal lawyers, the tax claim title that served as the basis for the enforcement was annulled by ANAF. The essence of resolving this case lay in filing the tax appeal, where, based on the fiscal specifics of the matter, compelling arguments were presented regarding the non-owed nature of the tax obligation. This argument proved decisive because, without a valid tax claim title, the garnishment no longer had any legal basis.
The Cluj-Napoca Court, in agreement with the arguments presented by the Brisc Legal lawyers, ordered the annulment of the garnishment imposed in the enforcement case and required ANAF to pay the legal costs incurred during the trial, as well as to refund the judicial stamp duty. In delivering this decision, the court, adopting the reasoning of the Brisc Legal legal team, ruled that since there was no valid enforceable title under which the petitioner could have been lawfully subjected to enforcement, the imposed garnishment was evidently illegal.