Legal Review Based on Turkish Tax Law, Court Rulings, and Practical Experience
What Is E-Notification in Turkey?
E-notification (e-tebligat) is an electronic system introduced by Article 107/A of the Turkish Tax Procedure Law (VUK), allowing the Revenue Administration to serve notices digitally. General Communiqué No. 456 sets the practical framework.
The system aims to make communication between the administration and taxpayers faster, more reliable, and traceable—reducing paper-based errors and ensuring timely delivery of tax assessments and penalties.
Who Is Obliged to Receive E-Notifications?
As of January 1, 2016, the following groups are legally required to receive e-notifications:
- Corporate taxpayers
- Individual taxpayers with commercial, agricultural, or professional income
- Individuals or businesses who voluntarily apply for the system
Once registered, these taxpayers must actively monitor their digital inboxes via the Revenue Administration portal or e-Government system.
What Does “Re’sen Terk” Mean?
In Turkish tax terminology, “re’sen terk” refers to the unilateral deregistration of a taxpayer by the tax authority.
This can occur when:
- The taxpayer has ceased operations but failed to report it
- The taxpayer cannot be located at the registered address
- The registration is deemed fictitious (e.g., created to issue false invoices)
Once re’sen terk is applied, the taxpayer loses access to online tax services and cannot submit declarations. However, their registration may still remain technically “open” in the system for e-notification purposes.
Can E-Notification Be Sent After Re’sen Terk?
According to Communiqué No. 456:
- Legal entities remain in the e-notification system until they are officially removed from the trade registry
- Individuals remain until they pass away
This means that taxpayers—despite being removed from the system through re’sen terk—may continue to receive digital notifications even though they are no longer active or aware of such legal communications.
Legal Problems and Our Case Study
This practice raises serious legal concerns:
- The legal article (107/A) does not explicitly mandate continued e-notifications for deregistered persons
- The obligation is only introduced via communiqué, not by primary legislation
- Under Turkish administrative law, a communiqué cannot impose new legal obligations beyond the law
📌 We represented a taxpayer whose registration had been terminated via re’sen terk. Nearly a year later, they discovered—through us—that they had received an e-notification containing a large tax penalty.
The case was brought before the Istanbul 9th Tax Court, which ruled in favor of the taxpayer:
In Case No. 2018/1856, the court stated that there was no legal obligation for a deregistered taxpayer to monitor their e-notification inbox, and therefore, the digital notification was unlawful.
This is a strong precedent proving that e-notifications sent to re’sen terk taxpayers are procedurally invalid.
Risks of the Current Practice
The continuation of e-notifications for deregistered taxpayers poses significant risks:
- Taxpayers may be unaware of penalties or audits issued against them
- Appeal periods may expire without their knowledge
- The tax authority may face revenue losses from overturned assessments
Moreover, many small businesses in Turkey shut down operations informally, without liquidation. This makes the issue even more widespread and urgent.
Recommendations for the Administration
To avoid further legal disputes and taxpayer grievances, we recommend the following:
- Deregistered (re’sen terk) taxpayers should be automatically removed from the e-notification system
- Traditional notification methods under VUK should be applied instead
- Until the law is amended, the Revenue Administration should issue an internal guideline clarifying that e-notifications should not be used in such cases
Final Thoughts
Maintaining e-notifications for taxpayers whose registration has been terminated by the tax authority is not only legally unfounded but also leads to real financial and procedural harm.
With recent court decisions—including one pursued directly by our firm—clearly supporting this view, we urge the administration to act preemptively and reform the practice without waiting for further litigation.