What to Ask a Forensic Expert in Tax and Accounting Cases

In tax and accounting cases, the outcome of an examination is decided not in the expert’s office but at the moment a party drafts the list of questions. A well-formed question addresses accounting facts that are visible in the documents — not guilt, legality or the legal classification of an act, because those belong to the court. Below is how to frame such questions correctly, with ready examples covering the amount of tax, the reality of a transaction and whether the accounting matches the source documents, plus what to avoid.

The core principle: ask about an accounting fact, not about law or guilt

A forensic economic expert applies specialised economic knowledge to the materials provided and shows what objectively follows from them. The expert does not establish guilt, does not classify an act under a particular article, does not conclude that the elements of a crime are present, and does not decide whether tax evasion took place. All of that is the exclusive competence of the pre-trial investigation body and the court.

The boundary here is not formal but substantive. One and the same discrepancy between the accounting records and the reporting may turn out to be either a bookkeeper’s technical error or a deliberate understatement — but choosing between those versions is a legal classification, not a matter of examining documents. The expert’s task is different: to establish whether a transaction is supported by source documents, in what amount, whether its recording complies with the established accounting rules, and how it affected tax liabilities. The conclusion “error or intent” is drawn by the investigator, the detective or the court.

The procedure for assigning and conducting an examination is set by the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Activity”, the Instruction on the assignment and conduct of forensic examinations (approved by Order No. 53/5 of the Ministry of Justice), and the procedural codes — the Criminal Procedure Code (KPK), the Commercial Procedure Code (HPK), the Civil Procedure Code (TsPK) or the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (KAS), depending on the type of proceedings. The logic is the same in all of them: legal questions are decided by the court or investigation body, specialised ones by the expert.

Three directions for well-formed questions

Almost all working questions in this category reduce to three directions. For each I give a generalised template — the specific dates, counterparty details and names are filled in from the case file, while the amounts, where they are the subject of the examination, are established by the expert and not stated by the party inside the question itself.

The amount of tax

This concerns the completeness with which tax liabilities are determined according to the accounting records — for VAT, corporate income tax, personal income tax (PIT) and so on. The question is always tied to a specific tax, a period and a list of documents.

Do the accounting and tax records and the source documents confirm the completeness of the VAT liabilities determined by taxpayer ”__” for the period from __ to __; did the discrepancies identified affect the amount of tax declared and, if so, by what amount?

The reality (substance) of a business transaction

The most delicate point. “Reality” is an evaluative category, and the final conclusion that a transaction was fictitious or lacked substance is drawn by the court. So the question is not framed as “was the transaction real”, but through documentary facts: whether the transaction is supported by source documents, whether the movement of goods and settlements is reflected in the accounts of both parties.

Do the source documents and the accounting records confirm the supply of goods (performance of works, provision of services) under contract ”__” of __ between ”__” and ”__”, its receipt into inventory, its payment and its subsequent movement?

Whether the accounting matches the source documents

The classic question about discrepancies between the source documents, the accounting registers and the reporting.

Do the accounting and tax records of ”__” for the period from __ to __ correspond to the source documents provided; if discrepancies are found, what do they consist of and how did they affect the tax-reporting figures?

What all three share: the expert answers the question “what do the documents show”, not “is this lawful” and not “who is to blame”.

Rely on the Ministry of Justice’s methodological recommendations

You do not need to invent the wording from scratch. The Scientific and Methodological Recommendations on the preparation and assignment of forensic examinations, approved by the same Order No. 53/5, contain an indicative list of typical questions for economic examinations. It is convenient to take this as a base and adapt it to the specific case, rather than trying to phrase everything “in your own words”.

The examination itself is carried out using methodologies from the Register of Forensic Examination Methodologies, maintained by the Ministry of Justice. Hence a practical rule: if there is no suitable methodology for your question, or it requires assumptions instead of an analysis of documents, the expert will not be able to answer it. It is therefore worth checking the draft list against the recommendations in advance — this filters out obviously “unworkable” wording before the motion is even filed. It also helps to review the Unified State Register of Court Decisions to see how similar questions have already been posed and resolved in comparable cases.

Match the questions to the expert’s specialty

Economic examination is divided into expert specialties, and an expert is not entitled to answer a question “outside their specialty” — even if they have the relevant knowledge. In tax and accounting cases the core is specialty 11.1, but a case often touches adjacent ones as well.

• 11.1 — examination of documents of accounting, tax accounting and reporting. Completeness of tax assessment, discrepancies between source documents and reporting, confirmation of accounting transactions, shortages and surpluses. The foundation of tax cases.
• 11.2 — examination of documents on the economic activity of enterprises and organisations. Financial results, calculation of losses, justification of costs, pricing. Questions about the effect of transactions on profit and about the size of losses belong here.
• 11.3 — examination of documents of financial and credit transactions. Movement of funds on accounts, settlement and credit operations, compliance with the terms of contracts with a bank.

The practical takeaway: if a case covers both taxes and, say, the movement of funds on accounts or the calculation of losses, do not mix this into one question — break it out by specialty as separate items. Before filing the motion, make sure the chosen expert is certified precisely for the required specialty: this is checked in the Register of Certified Forensic Experts on the Ministry of Justice website.

Ill-formed questions: legal and evaluative terms

The most frequent reason for rejection is a question that is legal or evaluative in substance. Anything that starts with “is the person guilty”, “is it lawful”, “are the elements of a crime present”, “who is responsible”, “was it lawful”, will be rejected as going beyond the expert’s competence. Compare.

How not to ask (legal / evaluative)	How to ask correctly (question about an accounting fact)
Did tax evasion take place?	Do the accounting records confirm the completeness of the tax liabilities determined for the period __, and in what amount were discrepancies found?
Are the transactions with ”__” fictitious (lacking substance)?	Do the source documents and accounting confirm the supply and payment of goods under contract ”__”?
Was the tax credit formed lawfully?	Does the recorded VAT tax credit for the period __ correspond to the source documents provided?
Is the chief accountant guilty of understating the tax?	Did the transactions of ”__” reflected in the accounts affect the amount of tax declared, and by what amount?
Was the state caused losses through non-payment of taxes?	Is the amount of unpaid tax liabilities for the period __ documentarily confirmed?

The right-hand column produces evidence; the left-hand column produces an almost guaranteed rejection or a question the expert reformulates at their own discretion. Watch out separately for evaluative words — “groundlessly”, “artificially”, “deliberately”, “in bad faith”: they too push the question into the legal sphere, and should be removed from the text.

Why ambiguous questions lead to “no answer possible”

A separate category of problems is questions that are economic in substance but framed so that they cannot be examined. The typical result is the conclusion “it is not possible to answer the question posed”. The causes are almost always the same:

• No period. Without the boundaries “from __ to __” the expert does not know which body of documents to examine.
• No link to documents. Questions about transactions or amounts for which there are no documents in the file. Ensure the completeness of the materials first, then draft the questions.
• Undefined terms. “Real losses”, “actual benefit”, “fair value” without explaining what exactly is meant and by which methodology it should be calculated.
• Assumptions required. “How much the enterprise should have paid under different conditions” — an examination works with the actual accounting data, not with hypotheses.
• Too broad a question. “Conduct a full audit of the financial and economic activity”: the expert is not an auditor or a revenue inspector; they examine specific transactions on the basis of specific documents.

It is precisely these “almost correct” questions that cost the most lost time: the case waits months for a conclusion, and the outcome is a rejection because of the vague wording of a single paragraph.

Who proposes and who approves the questions

The range of questions depends on the type of proceedings. In civil, commercial and administrative cases the examination is assigned by the court — by a ruling that also fixes the list of questions. In criminal proceedings the expert is engaged by the prosecution (the investigator, detective or prosecutor), while the defence has the right to engage an expert independently or to petition the investigating judge. Tax and other economic crimes are investigated by the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB); the grounds for an examination are often materials of the State Tax Service (DPS), and in cases involving the movement of funds, of the State Financial Monitoring Service.

Either way, a party almost always has the right to propose its own list — and it is precisely a considered, well-formed list that most often forms the basis of the procedural decision. That is why work on the wording is not a formality but a lever on the outcome.

Checklist before filing

1. Every question is about an accounting fact, not about guilt, legality or classification.
2. The text contains no legal or evaluative terms (“evasion”, “fictitious”, “groundlessly”, “lawfully”).
3. There is a specific tax or object, a period “from __ to __” and a list of documents.
4. The question is tied to specialty 11.1 (where needed, 11.2 or 11.3 separately), and the expert is certified for it.
5. The wording has been checked against the Ministry of Justice’s Scientific and Methodological Recommendations.
6. There are no duplicates and no questions beyond the materials provided.

If you are preparing a list of questions for an economic examination in a tax or accounting case, the most reliable approach is to agree it with the expert before filing the motion — this guards against rejections and saves weeks of waiting. I would be glad to help formulate the questions for your situation and to assess whether the available documents are sufficient for a complete and evidentiary conclusion.