You financed your company. Can you explain the source of your funds?

You put personal funds into your company to pay salaries, suppliers or investments. The amounts were recorded in its accounts and the company owes you the money. If ANAF asks where you obtained those funds, can you support the explanation with documents?

For a shareholder who financed their company, this question can affect their entire personal tax position. In a case handled by the practice, the examination initially produced liabilities exceeding RON 5.3 million. We later obtained suspension of enforcement and the annulment of more than RON 4.15 million.

Understanding the issue before receiving a tax enquiry can make a practical difference.

The company loan and the source of the money are separate questions

The loan agreement and accounting records document the relationship between shareholder and company. They show that the company received funds and owes an obligation to the person who financed it.

The origin of the shareholder’s funds is a separate matter. The existence of a company loan agreement does not by itself prove how the shareholder obtained the money.

This distinction is easy to overlook when the immediate concern is keeping the business running. You covered a cash shortfall and retained the transaction records. Years later, the questions may concern the personal savings used, when they accumulated and the evidence supporting them.

Financing a company does not itself establish unexplained income. The issue arises when the origin of the individual’s funds is questioned in a tax examination.

Loans to one’s own companies feature in inspection findings

An analysis published by EY specialists in August 2026, based on information communicated by ANAF, identifies loans to one’s own companies and capital increases among the situations examined in relation to funds with an unexplained origin. It also mentions cash deposits into personal or company accounts. See the EY analysis published by TaxNews.

For July 2025–May 2026, the same source reports 1,102 inspections, additional claims exceeding RON 540 million and asset-securing measures of almost RON 124 million. These figures concern reported inspection activity involving individuals. They do not provide a breakdown showing how many inspections began with shareholder loans.

The figures illustrate the scale of the possible consequences. For shareholders, the practical point is that business financing from personal resources is among the transactions examined.

An examination may extend to your personal tax position

In the case handled by the practice, the analysis covered loans to companies as well as sources and uses of funds over several years. It concerned the individual’s assets and the explanation for the amounts used.

Saying that the money appears in the company’s accounts may therefore answer only part of the enquiry. The company transaction and the explanation of the shareholder’s available funds need to be consistent.

Suppose you lent your company RON 600,000. The contract and transfer may establish when and to whom the money was paid. If you explain that it came from savings, the assessment also concerns whether those savings existed when the loan was made. This is a hypothetical example, not a threshold triggering a tax inspection.

Documents become harder to locate over time

When financing the company, you may clearly remember the transaction, the account used and why the business needed the money.

Years later, the explanation may depend on statements from closed accounts, older contracts or documents outside the company’s accounting file. Records of the source of funds deserve the same attention as the loan documents.

An explanation must reflect what actually happened and the evidence available. Preparing the defence involves reviewing that evidence together and identifying points requiring clarification.

Principal tax may be only part of the amount claimed

Unexplained income is an everyday expression for situations that may be classified for tax purposes as income whose source has not been identified. The classification and tax treatment must be examined in each case.

The consequences can include additional tax, interest and penalties. In the practice’s case, ANAF assessed RON 2,188,419 in income tax and RON 3,192,848 in ancillary charges, a total of RON 5,381,267.

This illustrates why the whole assessment must be reviewed. The financial exposure may substantially exceed the principal tax.

What we obtained for the taxpayer

The practice first obtained suspension of enforcement of the assessment within the limits set by the court.

The Ministry of Finance subsequently partially upheld the administrative challenge and annulled RON 4,151,264, approximately 77.14% of the original liabilities. RON 1,230,003 remained.

We intend to ask the court to annul the assessment in full, including that remaining amount, on other grounds of unlawfulness. This is an intended further step, not a court outcome already achieved.

A central argument accepted in the case concerned retroactive application of the 70% rate introduced by Law no. 296/2023. The results followed examination of the documents and a defence tailored to the case.

See the separate articles on suspension of enforcement and partial annulment of the ANAF assessment. The former gave temporary protection from enforcement, while the latter actually reduced the assessed liabilities.

Have you financed your company from personal funds?

Check whether your records explain both the company loan and the origin of your funds. If you have already received a notification, examination notice or assessment, the analysis should begin with the document served and the specific facts.

The practice provides advice and representation in personal tax examinations, tax challenges and proceedings for suspension or annulment of assessments. Use the contact form to arrange a review of your documents and available steps.

Sources and references

• taxnews.ro, reference 1