A moratorium in a composition with creditors (konkordato) does not erase tax and SGK debts by itself. On the other hand, the enforcement ban of a provisional or final moratorium, as a rule, also covers the collection of public receivables carried out under Law No. 6183. The temporary protection under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) Articles 288 and 294, and the exclusion of public receivables from the binding reduction and deferral effect of a composition under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 308/c and Law No. 6183 Article 101, are rules concerning different stages.
For this reason both generalizations are wrong: “A public receivable is not subject to the composition, so attachments continue during the moratorium,” and “The composition was accepted, so the tax and premium debt is reduced at the rate in the plan.” For a correct assessment, the court decision, the debtor the decision covers, the type and period of the debt, its dates of origin and payment, and the date of the enforcement act must be examined together.
Does a composition application have the same result as a moratorium decision?
The filing of a composition petition does not by itself mean that all enforcement proceedings have stopped. The start of the enforcement ban is determined by the provisional or final moratorium decision and any court measures on the subject. A company’s own announcement, a meeting record or a statement by the accountant cannot be used in place of a court decision.
Under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 288, a provisional moratorium has the consequences of a final moratorium. The approach that “only the final moratorium stops public enforcement” is therefore not correct. The start and end dates of the decision, extension decisions and revocation decisions should be tracked on the same calendar. Applying with the first moratorium decision but failing to report later changes of period can cause problems in administrative enforcement records.
Why does it matter which company or person the decision concerns?
The moratorium has effect for the debtor concerning whom the decision was made. Other companies in the same group, partners, guarantors or managers do not benefit from the same protection merely because of an economic connection. If there are several applicants, the scope of the decision issued for each must be read separately.
A change of trade name, a merger, or similar names among group companies can cause the wrong file to be reported to the collection office. The tax number, SGK workplace registry and court file must be matched correctly. A manager’s having obtained a moratorium decision in his or her own name is a different situation from the company’s decision.
Can tax and SGK enforcement be carried out during the moratorium?
Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 294 provides that no enforcement can be carried out against the debtor during the moratorium, including enforcement under Law No. 6183, and that proceedings already started stop. The ban on carrying out precautionary attachment and interim injunction decisions is in the same provision. Although statutory exceptions are reserved, the fact that a receivable is a public receivable does not by itself lift this protection.
Section 23 of SGK Circular No. 2024/12 likewise explains that no enforcement acts, including precautionary attachment, are to be taken against a debtor for whom a provisional or final moratorium decision has been issued. The decision should be submitted to the relevant unit; it should be shown which payment order, attachment or sale act was taken on which date. The application should not be left at merely “we are in a composition with creditors.”
Do tax assessment and reporting obligations stop as well?
The enforcement ban and the calculation, declaration, audit and accrual processes of a tax are not the same. The moratorium does not, in general, remove the company’s obligations to file tax returns and premium declarations. If a new act has been notified as a result of an audit of a past period, its legal nature and the time limit for suing are assessed separately.
A payment order is a collection act, whereas tax and penalty notices of assessment (ihbarname) belong to the tax assessment stage. Assuming, without making this distinction, that every document received is invalid because of the moratorium can lead to loss of rights. The time limit for suing against taxation must not be allowed to pass while waiting for a meeting or the commissioner’s report in the composition file.
Do an electronic attachment and bank freeze imposed earlier lift automatically?
The stopping of enforcement is not the automatic lifting of every attachment already applied. The SGK Circular explains that attachments and other enforcement made before the moratorium will not be lifted. The date of the freeze on the bank account, when the money entered the attached account and whether the amount has been transferred to the administration must be determined separately.
A collection act completed before the moratorium and the sending of attached money to the collection office during the moratorium are not the same legal stage. The nature of the act is investigated through account movements and bank letters. The general conclusion cannot be drawn that every freeze is to be released, or that every old attachment allows collection to continue throughout the moratorium.
If using the account is necessary for the continuation of the business, the request should be supported with wages, raw materials, essential operating expenses and cash-flow records. The rules on jurisdiction concerning judicial review of a tax or SGK act by the authority of the composition court are assessed together. An application for lifting made to one authority does not by itself preserve the time limit in the other judicial route.
Does a confirmed composition reduce tax and premium debt?
Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 308/c leaves public receivables under Law No. 6183 outside the general effect of the composition that binds all creditors. Law No. 6183 Article 101 also provides that a confirmed composition is not mandatory for public receivables. A reduction or long payment plan accepted by private creditors does not, merely by virtue of the confirmation decision, produce the same result for the tax office and SGK.
The practical consequence is this: ignoring public debts altogether in the plan creates an unrealistic picture of financial recovery. The principal tax, premiums, late-payment items and any separate deferral plan should be shown in the financial projection. The payment schedule that the composition plan provides for a private creditor should not be equated with the payment schedule of the public debt.
Do late-payment surcharges and interest continue to accrue?
The effect of a composition on interest in respect of some receivables cannot be transferred as is to public receivables. Section 23 of the SGK Circular states that, because of a moratorium or composition, a reduction in the Institution’s receivable, non-accrual of the late-payment surcharge, or an automatic deferral outcome will not be accepted.
The type and calculation of the ancillary receivable to apply to a tax debt are also determined under its own legislation. If a deferral (tecil) has been accepted, the conditions of the deferral apply; if there is a special restructuring, the provisions of that arrangement apply separately. Keeping the debt fixed in the accounting records for the length of the moratorium may understate the current debt amount. Variable rates should be checked against the official regulation on the date of payment and application.
Does the company’s composition also protect partners and managers?
It cannot be said that a moratorium decision concerning the company automatically stops the personal enforcement against a partner or manager. However, this does not mean that the company’s debt can be demanded from the manager in every case. First, the basis and conditions of personal liability are determined: partnership in a limited liability company, legal representation, and the liability of senior managers for SGK purposes differ.
For tax receivables, the conditions for applying VUK Article 10 and Law No. 6183 Article 35 or Article 35 (repeated), the period of office, the relevant duty and the conditions for collection from the company are assessed. The company’s entry into a composition does not, by itself, prove all the conditions of personal liability. A partner or manager also has his or her own right and time limit to sue against his or her own payment order.
Why are SGK debts before the moratorium distinguished from those during it?
SGK Circular No. 2024/12 explains the assessment of just cause under Law No. 5510 Article 88 for premiums not paid during the moratorium. On the liability of senior managers and officials in the collection of premiums for this period, the Circular takes into account the judicial approach based on the payment obstacle arising from the law. For debts of the period before the moratorium, on the other hand, it states that the decision concerning the company is not an obstacle to enforcement against managers and limited liability company partners.
This explanation should not be carried over with the same scope to all tax debts or all partners. Moreover, the working period of a premium and its legal payment date can differ. The working month, accrual, final payment day, the moratorium date and the person’s term of office should be shown together. The specific decisions on the commissioner’s and the court’s authority to pay also matter. A statement merely that “the company was in a composition” is not a sufficient defense for all periods.
If a payment order or attachment arrives despite the moratorium, what route is followed?
The court’s moratorium and extension decisions are submitted to the relevant collection unit, and a request is made to stop the act or to remedy the unlawful new act. The application clearly shows the debtor’s identity, the period of validity of the decision and the date of the act objected to. The act’s having been issued in the manager’s name instead of the company’s requires a different examination.
For a tax payment order, the tax court; for an SGK payment order under Law No. 5510 Article 88, the labor court — the special application regime is observed. The 15-day period in Law No. 6183 Article 58 is important for a payment order. For attachments and other acts, their own rules of jurisdiction and time limits are determined separately. The effect of the moratorium on certain limitation periods and preclusive periods should not be interpreted to mean that all administrative litigation periods stop.
The request should also include interim legal protection where necessary. A stay of execution in tax litigation and an interim injunction in the labor court are different procedural institutions. The existence of a court decision does not remove the need for the requested measure to clearly identify the act and the addressee.
How are deferral, restructuring and the composition planned together?
Deferral options for a public debt can be examined separately under Law No. 6183 Article 48 and the relevant special regulations. Deferral (tecil) is a separate administrative act that depends on the conditions of application, financial position, security, authority, type of debt and payment plan. Confirmation of the composition does not mean that a deferral request will necessarily be accepted.
The period, interest and security rules in force on the date of application should be used as the basis. Using the deferral figures of earlier years can be misleading, especially after legislative changes. It should not be assumed that enforcement and litigation periods stop merely because a deferral application was made. The commissioner’s cash plan and the payment plan for the public debt should be consistent with each other.
| Stage | Basic distinction for the public debt | Document to check |
|---|---|---|
| Application | Not, by itself, general enforcement protection | Whether there is a court decision |
| Provisional/final moratorium | Enforcement ban for the protected debtor | Moratorium and extension decisions |
| Earlier attachment | Stopping differs from lifting | Date of attachment, bank movements |
| Confirmation | Does not produce a mandatory reduction for the public debt | Plan and separate public payment plan |
| End of the moratorium | Continuation of protection is determined separately | Rejection, revocation, bankruptcy or new decision |
Conclusion
The basic principle for tax and SGK debts in a composition with creditors is to separate the temporary enforcement protection from the substantive existence of the debt and from personal liability. A moratorium decision can give the company breathing room; but it does not reduce the public receivable by itself, and it does not protect all managers to the same extent. The period, due date, office and court decisions must be examined together, and the financial plan must include public debts realistically.
Related articles: Objecting to an SGK Payment Order: 15-Day Time Limit, Annulment Action and Stopping Enforcement; Who Is Liable for a Company’s SGK Debt? Liability of Shareholders, Managers and Board Members; How to Lift an Electronic Attachment for Tax Debt? Bank Account Freeze and Legal Remedies; Deferral and Instalment Payment of Tax Debts: Financial Position, Security, Interest and Keeping the Payment Plan.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does tax enforcement stop immediately when a composition application is made?
The application alone is not enough; the moratorium and the relevant court decisions are the basis. See the section “Does a composition application have the same result as a moratorium decision?” Related explanation
Does a composition automatically lift an old electronic attachment?
The stopping of enforcement and the lifting of an attachment already applied are different. The dates of the act and of the movement of money are examined. The section “Do an electronic attachment and bank freeze imposed earlier lift automatically?” is explanatory. Related explanation
If the composition is confirmed, is the SGK debt reduced?
Public receivables fall outside the general binding reduction effect of the plan. A separate deferral or special arrangement should be examined. See the section “Does a confirmed composition reduce tax and premium debt?” Related explanation
Can a payment order be issued to the company manager during the composition?
The company’s decision does not automatically secure personal protection. The ground of liability, the period and, especially for SGK, the distinction within the moratorium are examined. The section “Does the company’s composition also protect partners and managers?” is explanatory. Related explanation
Sources and legal bases
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Articles 288, 294 and 308/c; amending Law No. 7101, official text of the Grand National Assembly (TBMM)
- Law No. 6183, Articles 35, 35 (repeated), 48, 58 and 101
- SGK, Circular No. 2024/12 of August 14, 2024, Section 23; the Institution’s text published by the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants of Türkiye (TÜRMOB). The deferral provisions should be assessed together with later amendments
- Law No. 5510 Article 88; Tax Procedure Law No. 213 Article 10
- Revenue Administration (GİB), information page on deferral and instalment payment under Law No. 6183 Article 48