Suspicion Sufficient in Taxation: Security Penalty Upheld
Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court Dated 4/6/2026 and Numbered E: 2026/32, K: 2026/129
The request of Sakarya Tax Court for the annulment of the statutory provision stipulating the imposition of a special irregularity penalty equal to the amount of security on taxpayers who do not deposit the tax security was rejected by the Constitutional Court.
Details of the Regulation
The Constitutional Court examined the rule added to repeated Article 355 of the Tax Procedure Law (VUK), which provides that taxpayers from whom security is requested on the suspicion of drawing up forged documents shall face severe penalties if they fail to fulfill this obligation. While the Court accepted that this regulation, introduced to ensure the security of public receivables and to combat tax evasion, constitutes an interference with the right to property, it stated that this interference is based on a legitimate aim and is 'proportionate'.
In the decision, the immense harm inflicted on the tax system by the act of drawing up forged documents was emphasized; it was expressed that the administration's authority to request security against these risks and the penal sanction supporting this authority do not conflict with the principles of the rule of law state. Furthermore, it was argued that setting an upper limit (between 75 thousand TL and 10 million TL) in determining the amount of the penalty prevents arbitrariness.
In the minority opinion (two members), however, it was argued that the rule should be annulled on the reasoning that the penalty in question is very high, constitutes an excessive interference with the right to property, and that closing the paths of settlement for taxpayers is unjust. However, by the majority decision, the objection was definitively rejected and the conformity of the rule with the Constitution was certified.
Questions You Might Have
- Can I obtain a reduction on this penalty imposed because I did not deposit the security?
- No, the statutory provision explicitly states that the settlement provisions and early payment reductions (VUK 376) shall not apply to this penalty.
- How much can the amount of the penalty be?
- Within the limits determined in the statute, the penalty is imposed in an amount exactly equal to whatever security amount the administration requested from you.
- Why did the Court not annul such a severe penalty?
- Because it evaluated that drawing up forged documents is the greatest enemy of the tax system and that protecting public receivables is a 'pressing social need'.
Key Terms
- Özel Usulsüzlük Cezası
- A type of tax penalty imposed in the event of non-compliance with the document order or failure to fulfill administrative obligations.
- İtiraz Yolu (Somut Norm Denetimi)
- The process of bringing a statutory provision applied during the hearing of a lawsuit before the Constitutional Court on the allegation that it is contrary to the Constitution.
- Mülkiyet Hakkı
- The constitutional right protecting a person's authority to dispose of their property assets as they wish.
Where we posted this
Follow Turkish legal developments
REGAS analyzed all 35 items in the Official Gazette of 10 August 2026; we published only 4 of them here.
REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.
The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.
REGAS Commentary
This decision considerably strengthens the hand of the tax administration in the face of allegations of drawing up forged documents. The greatest risk for taxpayers is that if they fail to deposit the high securities requested before a tax offense has become final (merely at the suspicion and report stage), they will face an additional penalty burden equal to the amount of that security. Moreover, the fact that mitigating mechanisms such as tax amnesties or settlement are unavailable for these penalties may produce financial consequences that could render the continuation of commercial activities impossible.