When a company in Turkey is served a tax and penalty notice that denies its VAT deduction because a supplier’s invoices are treated as fake documents, imposes a threefold tax loss penalty and perhaps adds a corporate tax difference, it has a single 30-day window. Within that period it can either apply for the penalty reduction under Tax Procedure Law (TPL) Art. 376 or bring an action in the tax court (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 7); settlement is closed for penalties based on the acts in TPL Art. 359 (TPL Annex Art. 1). Bringing an action suspends collection of the disputed part automatically (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 27(4)), but late payment interest keeps running until the judgment is served (TPL Art. 112(3)). An effective repentance payment in a parallel criminal case no longer requires the tax case to be dropped, because the Constitutional Court annulled that condition (E.2022/81, K.2023/153). This guide explains the items in the notice and the provisions behind them, the choice between the reduction and an action, the required contents of the petition (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 3), the provisions the case rests on (TPL Arts. 3/B, 134, 344 and 359; VAT Law Arts. 29 and 34), evidence and experts, the relationship with the criminal case, appeals as amended by Law No. 7589, and gives a model petition. It reflects the law in force on 27 October 2026.
- What the notice contains
- Thirty days: an action or the penalty reduction?
- Does an action stop collection?
- Does a payment in the criminal case end the right to sue?
- What the petition must contain
- Building the case: the provisions it rests on
- Evidence, interim orders and experts
- Relationship with the criminal case
- Appeals after the tax court
- Points for foreign-owned companies
- Model tax court petition
- How Hukukçular Evi can help
- Frequently asked questions
- Related guides
Contact Hukukçular Evi Ankara
The 30-day period starts on the day after service and is not extended. Decide between the penalty reduction and an action, and prepare the petition, with a team that handles both the tax and the criminal side. We work in English with foreign-owned companies. Hukukçular Evi Ankara: +90 554 648 37 15
No notice yet? If the company holds a KURGAN information request, an Examination Preparation Letter or a notice of examination, the options before an assessment are different. They are explained in our guides on fake invoice allegations and KURGAN tax audits and amended return or defence after a KURGAN letter. How the figures in a notice are calculated is shown in our guide on VAT deduction denied for fake invoices.
What the notice contains
An assessment based on a fake invoice allegation may arrive as several tax and penalty notices, one for each tax type and period, rather than as a single notice. Separating the items and the provisions they rest on in advance determines the scope of the action and the number of petitions. Three items can appear: the denial of the VAT deduction, a corporate or income tax base difference, and the tax loss penalty attached to them.
The denial of the VAT deduction rests on VAT Law Arts. 29 and 34. Under Art. 29(1)(a), taxpayers may deduct, from the VAT calculated on their taxable transactions, the VAT shown on invoices and similar documents issued for supplies of goods and services made to them in connection with their activities. Under Art. 34(1), the deduction requires the tax to be shown separately on the purchase invoice or similar document and the document to be recorded in the statutory books. In a fake document allegation, the administration argues that the condition of supplies “made to them” is not met: that no supply stands behind the invoice.
For the penalty, TPL Art. 344 provides that the tax loss penalty is one times the lost tax as a rule, and three times where the loss is caused by the acts in Art. 359; those who participate in those acts receive one times. Because using a fake document is an act under TPL Art. 359(b), the notice will show a threefold penalty where the administration alleges knowing use. A fake document is one issued as if a transaction or situation existed when it did not; a document misleading in content rests on a real transaction or situation but reflects it contrary to the truth in nature or amount (TPL Art. 359).
Items in the notice and the axis of the challenge
| Item | Basis | Axis of the challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of VAT deduction | VAT Law Arts. 29(1)(a), 34(1) | The supply on the invoice was actually made, the price was paid and the goods were used |
| Corporate or income tax base difference | TPL Art. 3/B; rules on determining profit | If the goods were actually bought and sold, rejecting the whole cost contradicts the real nature of the transaction |
| Threefold tax loss penalty | TPL Arts. 344, 359 | No concrete showing that the document was used knowingly; in the alternative, reduction of the penalty to one times |
| Late payment interest | TPL Art. 112 | Follows the tax; if the tax is cancelled, the interest falls with it |
The link between the tax and the penalty is the foundation of the strategy. Because the assessment assumes that there was no real supply, every piece of evidence showing that the transaction was real affects the VAT, the profit difference and the penalty together. Even if the court upholds the tax, however, the rate of the penalty can be argued separately if there is no concrete finding that the document was used knowingly. The petition should therefore argue the tax and the penalty under separate headings, each standing on its own.
Thirty days: an action or the penalty reduction?
Under Administrative Procedure Law Art. 7, the period for bringing an action in the tax courts is 30 days, and in tax disputes where service is made, it starts on the day after service. The same 30 days apply to an application for the penalty reduction under TPL Art. 376. Settlement, the third administrative route, is closed for fake invoice assessments: under TPL Annex Art. 1, penalties imposed where a tax loss was caused by the acts in Art. 359, and penalties imposed on those who participate in them, are excluded from settlement. Since Law No. 7524, settlement covers penalties only, so the tax itself is not open to settlement in any assessment.
Options in the 30 days after service of the notice
| Route | Condition | Result | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Action in the tax court | Within 30 days from the day after service, with a petition meeting Art. 3 | The tax, interest and penalty can all be argued; collection of the disputed part is suspended | Administrative Procedure Law Arts. 7, 27(4) |
| Penalty reduction | Apply within 30 days; pay the tax and the remaining penalty on the due date, or within three months with security; do not sue | Half of the penalty is waived; the tax cannot be argued | TPL Art. 376 |
| Settlement | Not available | Excluded for penalties based on the acts in Art. 359 | TPL Annex Art. 1 |
The penalty reduction is not closed for penalties linked to evasion acts, but its price is full acceptance of the tax and the loss of the right to sue: under TPL Art. 376, a taxpayer who does not pay the tax and penalty it undertook to pay within the period, or who brings an action, cannot benefit. Half of a threefold penalty still means a penalty of one and a half times the lost tax, plus the tax itself and late payment interest.
The question that decides the choice is whether the supply on the invoice actually took place and whether documents can show it. If the receipt of the goods or services, the payment into the seller’s own account and the use of the goods in the company’s business can be documented, an action, which can remove the whole assessment, comes to the fore. If the documents are weak, or it is known that some of the invoices had no real supply behind them, the cost of the reduction should be weighed against the amount payable, and the interest accruing, if the action is lost.
Where several notices have been served, Administrative Procedure Law Art. 5 requires a separate action against each administrative act, although a single petition may be used against several acts that are linked factually or legally or as cause and effect. A separate petition for each notice covering a different tax type or period avoids procedural argument if the cases later diverge. The period for each petition runs from service of its own notice.
Does an action stop collection?
Yes. Under Administrative Procedure Law Art. 27(4), bringing an action in the tax court in a tax dispute suspends collection of the disputed part of the taxes, duties and similar charges assessed and of the related surcharges and penalties. No separate request for a stay and no security are needed; the suspension arises automatically when the action is brought. The whole notice should therefore be challenged; if only part is challenged, the part left out of the action will be collected. The same paragraph excludes actions against collection measures and actions concerning returns filed under reservation, where collection continues and a stay must be requested.
Suspension of collection does not stop late payment interest. Under TPL Art. 112(3)(b), late payment interest is charged on the unpaid part of taxes under litigation from the normal due date until the date the court’s decision is served. The cost of a lost action therefore grows with the length of the proceedings, and that risk belongs in the decision to sue. At the taxpayer’s request, taxes and penalties whose collection is suspended may be paid in whole or in part during the case (TPL Art. 112(3)).
Collection and interest during the action
| Question | Rule | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Is collection suspended? | Yes, for the disputed part, automatically | Administrative Procedure Law Art. 27(4) |
| Does interest keep running? | Yes, until the decision is served | TPL Art. 112(3)(b) |
| Can the company pay during the case? | Yes, in whole or in part, at its request | TPL Art. 112(3) |
| What if the company wins after paying? | The tax is refunded with interest at the deferral rate from collection to service of the correction slip | TPL Art. 112(4) |
| Actions concerning reservation returns or collection measures | Collection is not suspended; a stay may be requested | Administrative Procedure Law Art. 27(4) |
Does a payment in the criminal case end the right to sue?
No. A fake document allegation can lead to a criminal investigation under TPL Art. 359 alongside the assessment. Under the provisions added to Art. 359 by Law No. 7394 from 15 April 2022, if the tax assessed, all of the late payment interest and surcharge, half of the penalties imposed and the surcharge on that half are paid during the investigation, the prison term is reduced by half; if paid during the prosecution before judgment, by one third.
The condition attached to that reduction, that no tax case be brought or that any case be withdrawn and no appeal be made, was annulled by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 September 2023 (E.2022/81, K.2023/153). The company can therefore make the effective repentance payment in the criminal file while continuing its action in the tax court. If the action is won, the amount collected without basis is refunded with interest under TPL Art. 112(4). The details are explained in our guide on effective repentance in Turkish fake invoice cases.
An amended return is different. Under TPL Art. 378(2), taxpayers cannot sue against the bases they declared or the taxes assessed on them. If the company filed an amended return without reservation removing the invoices from its deductions, the route to court against that return is closed for the tax, although the penalty and interest can still be challenged. The case law is set out in our guide on amended return or defence after a KURGAN letter.
What the petition must contain
Under Administrative Procedure Law Art. 3, administrative actions are brought by signed petitions addressed to the president of the court. The law lists the required contents, including an item specific to tax cases. A defective petition may be rejected for correction within 30 days under Art. 15(1)(d), and if the same mistakes are repeated in the new petition, the action is dismissed (Art. 15(5)). The petition should therefore be complete the first time.
Required contents of a tax court petition
| Element | In a fake invoice case | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Parties and counsel | The company’s name, address and tax number; the defendant tax office; counsel’s name and address | Administrative Procedure Law Art. 3(2)(a) |
| Subject, grounds and evidence | Request to cancel the tax and penalty; the grounds of unlawfulness; bank, transport, stock and sales evidence | Art. 3(2)(b) |
| Date of written notification | The date the notice was served | Art. 3(2)(c) |
| Amount in dispute | Tax and penalty stated separately | Art. 3(2)(d) |
| Tax-specific details | Type and year of the tax and penalty, date and number of the notice, taxpayer account number | Art. 3(2)(e) |
| Annexes | The notice, the examination report and the evidence; one copy more than the number of opposing parties | Art. 3(3) |
| Competent court | The tax court where the tax office that assessed the tax and imposed the penalty is located | Art. 37(a) |
| Request for a hearing | Can be made in the petition in cases above the monetary threshold | Art. 17 |
Under TPL Art. 377, taxpayers and those on whom a tax penalty has been imposed may sue against the taxes assessed and the penalties imposed. In an action for a company, the petition is signed by the person authorised to represent the company or by counsel. If the tax examination report was not served with the notice, a copy should be requested from the tax office and the petition prepared with its contents in view; a petition written without seeing the report can answer only the part of the allegations summarised in the notice.
Building the case: the provisions it rests on
The basic question the court must answer in a fake invoice case is whether the supply on the invoice actually took place. The petition should answer it with statutory provisions and documents. The headings below form the skeleton of the grounds section; each rests on a separate provision and calls for assessment even if another is rejected.
The real nature of the transaction and the burden of proof (TPL Art. 3/B)
Under TPL Art. 3/B, the real nature of the taxable event and of the related transactions is decisive in taxation and may be proved by any evidence other than an oath, while witness evidence not naturally and clearly connected with the taxable event cannot be used. A party alleging a situation that does not fit economic, commercial or technical requirements, or that is not normal and usual for the nature of the event, must prove it. The petition uses this provision in two directions: the company submits the documents showing that the purchase was real, and it stresses that the administration must establish that no supply stood behind the invoices through concrete findings about the claimant’s own purchases, not through general findings about the issuer.
The purpose of the examination and the scope of the report (TPL Art. 134)
Under TPL Art. 134, the purpose of a tax examination is to investigate, establish and secure the correctness of the taxes that should be paid. This provision supports criticism of assessments made by reference only to a report about the issuer, without examining the claimant’s own books and documents, bank records, stock movements and sales. The petition should question one by one which findings the examination report made at the claimant, which documents it examined, and from which concrete facts it concluded that the purchases were not real. If the report passes over the evidence the company submitted, that omission should be stated separately.
The conditions for deduction are met (VAT Law Arts. 29 and 34)
The petition should show that the invoices relate to goods connected with the company’s activity, that they were recorded in the books, that the goods were received and that they were used in the business. Sales invoices, export declarations or production records showing that the goods were later sold or used are among the strongest proof that the purchase was real; goods that were sold must have been bought somewhere. In a case on amended returns filed under reservation after a coercive letter, the Council of State’s Plenary Tax Chambers held that the court must examine, under TPL Art. 3 and VAT Law Art. 29, whether the invoices reflected real supplies, and indicated that the claimant’s purchase, shipment, payment and transport documents and the administration’s reports should be obtained by interim order (E.2020/522, K.2020/606 of 22 May 2020).
The definition of a fake document and intent (TPL Arts. 359 and 344)
A fake document is one issued as if a transaction or situation existed when it did not. Where the supply is shown to have been made, the document falls outside that definition; if the price or quantity is untrue, the allegation can at most become one of a document misleading in content. For the penalty, TPL Art. 344(2) ties the threefold penalty to a tax loss caused “by the acts in Art. 359”. Under Communiqué No. 306 on the Tax Procedure Law, the threefold penalty applies where a taxpayer used a fake document knowingly, and where it is found to have used it without knowing, no tax crime report or complaint is made and the penalty is one times the tax. The petition argues that there is no concrete finding of knowing use and that the company bought in an ordinary commercial relationship, at a market price and with payment through a bank. This is also the basis of the secondary request, made without acceptance, that if the tax is upheld the penalty be applied at one times rather than three.
Rejecting the whole cost on the profit side
Examination reports may reject the cost based on the same invoices and calculate a corporate tax base difference. If the company actually sold the goods and declared the sales revenue, a base difference that assumes the goods had no cost at all conflicts with the real-nature principle in TPL Art. 3/B. In decision E.2023/7867, K.2024/670 of 19 February 2024, the Council of State’s Third Chamber held unanimously that a real expense may be accepted as a cost for corporate tax even without a document, although the VAT on it cannot be deducted. In decision E.2024/128, K.2026/32 of 28 January 2026, adopted by majority, the Plenary Tax Chambers upheld a judgment requiring the base to be set as close as possible to reality, taking into account purchases from other suppliers. The petition should match this point to the quantities sold and the sales records.
Time limit for assessment
Under TPL Art. 114, taxes not assessed and served within five years from the start of the calendar year following the year in which the tax arose become time-barred; a referral to the assessment commission suspends the period, but for no more than one year. Because fake invoice examinations can reach back to earlier periods, the time between the period concerned and the date the notice was served should always be calculated. If a period is time-barred, that should be the first ground in the petition.
Evidence, interim orders and experts
Under Administrative Procedure Law Art. 20, the tax courts carry out every kind of examination in the cases before them of their own motion, and may ask the parties and other bodies to send any documents and provide any information they consider necessary within a set period. That power matters in fake invoice cases: records that the company does not hold, such as a carrier’s records, bank account movements or the records annexed to the report on the seller, can be requested from the court by interim order. The petition should state these requests clearly, showing which document is sought from which body and why.
Evidence map for a fake invoice case
| Point to prove | Evidence | Where to obtain it |
|---|---|---|
| The price was paid to the seller | Bank transfer receipts, account statements, cheque and card records | The company’s banks; if needed, an interim order |
| The goods were received | Delivery notes, freight invoices, weighbridge slips, warehouse entries | Company archive, carrier, warehouse operator |
| The goods were used or sold | Production records, sales invoices, customs declarations, stock movements | The company’s books and e-document records |
| The relationship was ordinary | Orders and quotations, price comparisons, supplier checks | Email and correspondence archive |
| The report lacks a basis | The examination report, cross-examination records, annexes to the report | Tax office; request by interim order |
Expert examination is carried out under the Code of Civil Procedure through Administrative Procedure Law Art. 31, and experts are chosen from the lists prepared by the regional expert boards. In cases where it must be shown that the books, stock records and bank records confirm one another, a reasoned request for an expert examination should appear in the petition. A hearing is held at the request of either party in tax cases above the monetary threshold in Administrative Procedure Law Art. 17, which is revalued every year (Annex Art. 1); the request can be made in the petition. In complex files where the evidence needs to be explained, that option is worth using. The documents a company should have assembled at the time of purchase are listed in our guide on supplier due diligence against fake invoice risk.
Relationship with the criminal case
A fake document allegation can be tried before a criminal court as well as in the tax court. Under TPL Art. 367, a conviction for the offences in Art. 359 does not prevent the tax loss penalty from also being applied. The last paragraph of that article, which provided that criminal court judgments do not affect the authorities applying tax penalties and that their decisions do not bind the criminal judge, was annulled by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4 November 2021 (E.2019/4, K.2021/78).
The practical result is that the two cases proceed in separate courts and neither automatically binds the other, but no statutory provision now prevents interaction between them. Expert reports, witness statements or an acquittal obtained in the criminal file can be submitted to the tax court with a request that they be assessed, and a cancellation judgment from the tax court can be filed as evidence in the criminal file. Consistency between the defences in the two files is one of the factors that decide the outcome. What a manager should do if summoned is explained in our guide on giving a statement in a Turkish fake invoice investigation.
Appeals after the tax court
Tax court decisions can be appealed to the regional administrative court within 30 days of service (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 45(1)). Decisions in tax cases whose subject does not exceed the monetary threshold in that paragraph are final. Decisions of the regional administrative courts in tax cases whose subject exceeds the threshold in Art. 46(1)(b) can be appealed to the Council of State within 30 days. Law No. 7589, in force from 31 July 2026, added a new paragraph (2) to Art. 46: in cases outside the first paragraph, where the regional administrative court sets aside the first-instance decision and decides the case again, that new decision can also be appealed to the Council of State within 30 days, subject to listed exceptions that include cases heard by a single judge. The monetary thresholds are revalued every year (Annex Art. 1), so the amounts in force on the relevant date should be checked.
Routes after the tax court decision
| Stage | Period | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal to the regional administrative court | 30 days from service; decisions below the threshold are final | Administrative Procedure Law Art. 45(1) |
| Appeal to the Council of State (above the threshold) | 30 days from service | Art. 46(1)(b) |
| Appeal to the Council of State after the regional court sets aside and decides again | 30 days from service; listed exceptions apply | Art. 46(2), added by Law No. 7589 |
| Thresholds | Revalued at the start of each calendar year | Annex Art. 1 |
Points for foreign-owned companies
For a Turkish subsidiary of a foreign group, the 30-day period leaves little room for lengthy internal approvals. The decision between the penalty reduction and an action should be prepared as soon as the examination report is available, so that the group can decide on the figures before the notice is served. Documents in other languages that are submitted as evidence should be accompanied by Turkish translations. Once the company is represented by Turkish counsel, documents in the case are served on counsel; how service works, including electronic service, is explained in our guide on service of documents in Turkish proceedings.
The tax case and any criminal case against the company’s managers concern the same facts. Foreign directors may be among those summoned, and tax that cannot be collected from the company may in some circumstances be collected from its legal representatives. Those points are covered in our guide on personal liability of directors and managers. The account given in the tax court petition should be the same account the managers can give in a statement.
Model tax court petition
The model below is prepared for one period in which the invoices of a single supplier were treated as fake documents, the VAT deduction was denied and a threefold tax loss penalty was imposed. It is an English working draft for group review; the petition filed with the tax court must be in Turkish, a separate petition should be prepared for each notice, and the dates, amounts and evidence must be completed for the file. If there is a time bar or a defect in service, it should be argued first, under its own heading, before the grounds on the merits.
A HEARING IS REQUESTED
CLAIMANT : …………… Anonim Şirketi, tax identification no. ……………, address: ……………
COUNSEL : Av. ……………, address: ……………
DEFENDANT : …………… Tax Office Directorate
SUBJECT : Request to cancel tax and penalty notice no. …… dated ……, by which VAT of TRY …… was assessed against our company for the …… period of 20… and a threefold tax loss penalty of TRY …… was imposed.
DATE OF SERVICE : …/…/2026
TYPE AND YEAR OF TAX : Value added tax, …… / Tax loss penalty, ……
AMOUNT IN DISPUTE : Tax TRY ……; tax loss penalty TRY ……
TAXPAYER ACCOUNT NO : ……………
EXPLANATIONS
Our company has operated in the …………… sector since ……. The tax examination report no. …… dated …… on which the notice is based alleges that …… invoices totalling TRY …… received from …………… in the …… period were not based on real supplies of goods, denies the deduction of the TRY …… of VAT shown on them, and imposes a threefold tax loss penalty under Art. 344(2) of the Tax Procedure Law. As explained below, the findings on which the report relies concern mainly the report on the seller and contain no concrete finding about our company’s purchases.
1. TPL Art. 3/B: taxation must follow the real nature of transactions, and our purchases are shown to be real
Art. 3/B of the Tax Procedure Law provides that the real nature of the taxable event and of the related transactions is decisive in taxation, that it may be proved by any evidence other than an oath, and that whoever alleges an unusual situation must prove it. The goods on the invoices were delivered to our company’s warehouse at …………… against the attached delivery notes, the carrier’s invoices and weighbridge slips, and were entered in the warehouse records. As the attached bank transfer receipts show, the entire price was paid into the seller’s own bank account; there was no cash payment and no payment to a third party. The goods were sold to our customers between …… and …… as shown by the attached sales invoices and stock movements. Goods that were sold must have been bought somewhere, and the administration has not disputed the sales themselves.
2. TPL Art. 134: the examination should have investigated the real position of our company’s transactions
The purpose of a tax examination is to investigate and establish the correctness of the taxes that should be paid. The report did not examine our company’s stock movements, sales or payments; it concluded that our purchases were not real from the findings about the seller, without assessing the explanation and annexes we submitted on ……. General findings about documents the seller issued to other taxpayers do not show that no supply was made to our company. Because the report does not state the concrete fact from which it concluded that no goods were delivered to our company, the assessment lacks a basis.
3. VAT Law Arts. 29(1)(a) and 34(1): the conditions for deduction are met
Art. 29(1)(a) of the VAT Law allows taxpayers to deduct the tax shown on invoices issued for supplies made to them in connection with their activities, and Art. 34(1) requires the tax to be shown separately on the invoice and the invoice to be recorded in the statutory books. The invoices in dispute concern goods within our company’s line of business, the tax is shown separately on them and they were recorded in the statutory books on time. Since the supply is shown by the evidence under the first heading, the denial of the deduction is unlawful.
4. TPL Arts. 344(2) and 359: the threefold penalty depends on a finding of knowing use
The threefold tax loss penalty applies only where the tax loss was caused by the acts in Art. 359. Using a fake document requires that its nature be known. Our company bought from the seller in an ordinary commercial relationship, at a market price and with payment through a bank, and the report contains no finding that our company knew of any irregularity in the seller’s dealings with others. The penalty therefore has no basis. Without this being taken as acceptance, even if the court were to take the opposite view on the tax, the penalty could not lawfully be applied at three times, since knowing use has not been shown concretely, and could be applied at no more than one times.
5. Administrative Procedure Law Art. 20: the evidence must be collected and an expert examination is needed
The dispute turns on whether our company’s books, stock records and bank records confirm one another. We therefore request that the defendant be ordered to submit all annexes to the tax examination report and the cross-examination records, that the transport records for the …… period be obtained from …………… Nakliyat, and that an expert examination be carried out on our company’s records.
LEGAL GROUNDS : Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Arts. 3, 7, 17, 20, 27 and 31; Tax Procedure Law No. 213, Arts. 3, 134, 344, 359 and 377; VAT Law No. 3065, Arts. 29 and 34; and related legislation.
EVIDENCE : Tax and penalty notice and proof of service; tax examination report; purchase invoices; delivery notes; freight invoices and weighbridge slips; bank transfer receipts and account statements; warehouse and stock records; sales invoices; order correspondence; expert examination; records to be obtained by interim order; and all other legal evidence.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST : For the reasons explained above and those the court will consider of its own motion, we request (1) the cancellation of the VAT assessed and the tax loss penalty imposed by tax and penalty notice no. …… dated ……, (2) without this being taken as acceptance, and only if the court takes the opposite view on the tax, that the tax loss penalty be applied at one times, and (3) that the costs of the proceedings and counsel’s fees be charged to the defendant. …/…/2026
Counsel for the Claimant
Av. ……………
ANNEXES : Notice and proof of service; tax examination report; purchase invoices and delivery notes; freight invoices and weighbridge slips; bank transfer receipts and account statements; stock and warehouse records; sales invoices; order correspondence; power of attorney.
The fourth heading keeps the tax and the penalty apart. Even if the court does not accept that the purchases were real, the rate of the penalty remains in the file as a separate question. Framing the secondary request “without this being taken as acceptance” prevents it from being read as a withdrawal of the main request.
How Hukukçular Evi can help
In fake invoice assessments, the tax case may run alongside a criminal investigation, and statements and evidence in one file affect the other directly. Hukukçular Evi Ankara reviews the examination report and the notices, checks time limits and procedure, calculates the choice between the penalty reduction and an action on the basis of the tax, the penalty and interest, prepares a petition for each notice, pursues interim orders and expert examinations, attends hearings, handles appeals to the regional administrative court and the Council of State, and acts as defence counsel in the criminal file. We work in English with foreign-owned companies and group legal teams. The scope of the service is described on our fake invoice defence page (in Turkish), and the lawyer’s profile is on the author page. You can reach us on +90 554 648 37 15 as soon as the notice is served.
Frequently asked questions
How long do we have to sue against a fake invoice assessment?
Thirty days, starting on the day after the notice is served (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 7). An application for the penalty reduction must be made within the same 30 days; if the period is missed, the notice becomes final.
Can the penalty be settled?
No. Under TPL Annex Art. 1, penalties imposed where the tax loss was caused by the acts in Art. 359, and penalties imposed on participants, are excluded from settlement; since Law No. 7524, the tax itself is not subject to settlement either.
Can the penalty reduction be used for a threefold penalty?
Yes. The reduction in TPL Art. 376 is also available for penalties linked to evasion acts. The application is made within 30 days, the tax and the remaining penalty are paid on the due date or within three months with security, and no action is brought. Half of the penalty is waived, but the tax cannot be argued.
Will the tax and penalty be collected if we sue?
No. Bringing a tax action suspends collection of the disputed part (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 27(4)). Late payment interest continues to run until the decision is served (TPL Art. 112(3)).
Does an effective repentance payment in the criminal case end the tax case?
No. The condition not to sue was annulled by the Constitutional Court (E.2022/81, K.2023/153). The case can continue while payment is made, and if the action is won, the amount collected without basis is refunded with interest (TPL Art. 112(4)).
Can we sue after filing an amended return?
Not against the tax on a return filed without reservation (TPL Art. 378(2)); the penalty and interest can still be challenged. A reservation after a coercive letter from the administration preserves the right to sue against the tax.
Is a report about the seller enough on its own?
That is the central objection in the petition. Under TPL Arts. 3/B and 134, the assessment must rest on concrete findings about the claimant’s own purchases; general findings about documents the seller issued to others do not in themselves show that no supply was made to the claimant.
How do we prove that we actually received the goods?
With bank payments, delivery notes, transport and weighbridge documents, warehouse entries, the later sale or use of the goods in production, and order correspondence. TPL Art. 3/B admits any evidence except an oath, but witness evidence not naturally and clearly connected with the event cannot be used.
If the court upholds the tax, does the penalty stay at three times?
That is a separate question. The threefold penalty depends on a tax loss caused by the acts in Art. 359; if knowing use has not been shown, the petition requests in the alternative, without acceptance, that the penalty be applied at one times.
Which tax court has jurisdiction?
The tax court where the tax office that assessed the tax and imposed the penalty is located (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 37(a)). The petition is addressed to the presidency of that court.
Can a hearing be requested?
Yes, in tax cases above the monetary threshold in Administrative Procedure Law Art. 17, which is revalued every year. The request can be made in the petition.
What happens if the petition is incomplete?
It can be rejected for correction within 30 days (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 15(1)(d)); if the same mistakes are repeated, the action is dismissed (Art. 15(5)).
Does an acquittal in the criminal case help in the tax case?
It does not bind the tax court automatically, but it can be submitted as evidence. The provision that criminal and tax decisions do not bind each other was annulled by the Constitutional Court (E.2019/4, K.2021/78), so no provision prevents interaction between them.
Can the corporate tax difference be challenged too?
Yes. If the goods were really bought and sold, rejecting the whole cost conflicts with TPL Art. 3/B; the Council of State’s Third Chamber has held that a real expense may be accepted as a cost for corporate tax even without a document (E.2023/7867, K.2024/670).
Can the tax court decision be appealed?
Yes, to the regional administrative court within 30 days, unless the amount is below the threshold. A further appeal to the Council of State is available above the threshold in Art. 46(1)(b), and, since Law No. 7589, in some cases where the regional court sets aside the first-instance decision and decides again (Art. 46(2)).
Related guides
- Fake Invoice Allegations and KURGAN Tax Audits in Turkey — the entry point to this series
- VAT Deduction Denied for Fake Invoices in Turkey: How the Assessment Is Calculated
- Amended Return or Defence after a KURGAN Letter in Turkey
- Effective Repentance in Turkish Fake Invoice Cases
- Called to Give a Statement in a Turkish Fake Invoice Investigation
- Personal Liability of Directors and Managers in Turkish Fake Invoice Cases
- Supplier Due Diligence Against Fake Invoice Risk in Turkey
- Service of Documents in Turkish Proceedings
- Legal Guide for Foreign Investors in Turkey (Türkiye) 2026
- Knowing or Unknowing Use of Fake Documents: Intent Criteria (in Turkish)
- Defence Petition in a Fake Invoice Criminal Case (in Turkish)
- Limitation Periods in Turkish Fake Invoice Cases
- Fake Invoice and KURGAN Decision Tool (in Turkish)
- Travel Bans in Turkish Fake Invoice Investigations
- Precautionary Attachment in Turkish Fake Invoice Cases
Important note: This guide is for general information only and does not constitute legal or tax advice on any matter. Whether to sue or apply for the penalty reduction, and how to frame the petition, must be decided on the notice, the examination report and the documents in the file. It does not suggest that any company or person has committed an offence; the presumption of innocence applies. It reflects the law in force on 27 October 2026; monetary thresholds are revalued annually and should be checked on the relevant date. Legislation and sources relied on: Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Arts. 3, 5, 7, 15, 17, 20, 27, 31, 37, 45 and 46 and Annex Art. 1, as amended by Law No. 7589; Tax Procedure Law No. 213, Arts. 3, 112, 114, 134, 344, 359, 367, 376, 377 and 378 and Annex Art. 1; VAT Law No. 3065, Arts. 29 and 34; Communiqué No. 306 on the Tax Procedure Law; Constitutional Court decisions E.2019/4, K.2021/78 (4 November 2021) and E.2022/81, K.2023/153 (13 September 2023); Council of State decisions E.2023/7867, K.2024/670; Plenary Tax Chambers E.2020/522, K.2020/606 and E.2024/128, K.2026/32.
Decide before the 30 days run out
The choice between the penalty reduction and an action cannot be undone and affects the criminal file too. Have the notice, the examination report and your purchase documents reviewed together. We work in English with foreign-owned companies. Hukukçular Evi Ankara: +90 554 648 37 15
