Not every item found at a tax debtor’s workplace belongs to the debtor. A leased machine, a vehicle left for repair or a product given in trust may be mistaken for the debtor’s property during an attachment. A third party may bring an ownership claim (istihkak iddiası) based on ownership or a pledge right. Under Articles 66–68 of Law No. 6183, the application procedure varies according to in whose hands the property was attached. In particular, the seven-day period for bringing an action that is notified to the third party must not be overlooked.
This article addresses the right of a third party over goods when the tax collection office carries out an attachment. Responding to an attachment notice sent to a bank or a customer, a debtor’s claim that its own property is exempt from attachment, and the special rules on jurisdiction in social security (SGK) enforcement are assessed separately.
What is the difference between an ownership claim and cancellation of the attachment?
In an ownership claim, the core question is whether the attached property belongs to the debtor or to a third party. A claim of a pledge right may also fall within this regime. In cancellation of an attachment, by contrast, the issues in dispute are the authority and procedure of the attachment, the status of the debt, or the other conditions of lawfulness. The fact that an application is titled “lifting of attachment” does not by itself determine the legal nature of the dispute.
For example, a company that is a tax debtor may ask for the attachment to be lifted because it has paid its debt. A leasing company that owns a machine, on the other hand, is concerned not with the amount of the tax debt but with the fact that the attached machine is its own property. The evidence and the application routes for these two requests are not the same. The petition must state clearly which right over which item is to be protected.
The mere fact that a third party is a creditor of the debtor does not give it an ownership claim over all of the debtor’s property. Likewise, non-payment of the sale price does not in every case mean that ownership of the item sold remained with the seller. The type of contract, delivery and the validity of any retention-of-title arrangement are examined separately.
Which route is followed if the property was attached in the debtor’s hands?
Entering the claim in the attachment record
Under Article 66 of Law No. 6183, if the debtor states that the property in its hands belongs to a third party or is subject to a third party’s pledge, this claim is entered in the attachment record. A claim raised directly by the third party is also recorded. If the claim was raised by the debtor, notice is given to the third party; if it was raised by the third party, notice is given to the debtor.
Instead of a general entry such as “the goods belong to another person”, the record should state the brand, model, serial number, quantity and location of the property. It must be possible to see that the item on the invoice or contract is the same as the item attached. If no document could be produced at the time of the attachment, the claim should still be clearly recorded; when the documents are submitted later, the application and action periods must be protected separately.
The seven-day periods start at different points
If the collection office does not reject the claim within seven days from the date it received the attachment record, it is deemed to have accepted the claim. The Law also provides a seven-day objection regime with respect to the notice given to the third party. If the claim is not accepted by the collection office or the debtor objects to it, the third party is notified that it must apply to the court within seven days. Failure to bring an action within this period results in the ownership claim being deemed abandoned.
For this reason, the date of the attachment, the date the record reached the office and the date of service on the third party must not be treated as if they were the same date. The service document, electronic service records and the receipt of the application should be examined together. An oral conversation with the administration is not an act that preserves the action period.
Who brings the action if the property is in the hands of a third party?
Article 67 of Law No. 6183 governs the situation in which the property is not in the debtor’s hands and was attached in the hands of a third party who claims ownership or a pledge right. The claim is entered in the record. The collection office, which maintains that the property belongs to the debtor, notifies the creditor public administration. If the public administration does not bring an action within fifteen days of the notice, the ownership claim is deemed accepted.
The change in the party who must bring the action is important here. However, the condition that the property is in the hands of a third party is not determined merely by a statement of address; actual control over the property and the relationship of use are investigated. In the case of a person residing together with the debtor, the Law treats the property as being in the debtor’s hands. Joint use of a workplace, or de facto entanglement between companies, is also a matter that must be examined with concrete documents.
| Situation | Basic step | Critical period |
|---|---|---|
| Property in the debtor’s hands | Entering the claim in the record and notices | The separate seven-day stages in Art. 66 |
| Claim rejected or debtor objected | Notice to the third party to bring an action | Seven days from the notice |
| Property in the hands of the third party claiming the right | Notice by the collection office to the public administration | Fifteen days for the public administration to bring an action |
Which court is applied to, and does the sale stop automatically?
An ownership dispute based on ownership or a pledge right is heard in the judicial courts. In the classic ownership action concerning a tax collection attachment, the court with general jurisdiction is the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi); whether a special jurisdiction rule applies in the concrete case is checked separately. Article 68 of Law No. 6183 gives territorial jurisdiction to the court of the place where the collection office that made the attachment is located. This action should not be understood as meaning that every attachment dispute is taken to the enforcement court (icra hukuk mahkemesi).
Filing the action does not mean that the sale stops automatically. The plaintiff may ask for the proceedings to be suspended by submitting its evidence. The court assesses the nature of the evidence and may order suspension on condition that sufficient security is furnished for possible damage. Concrete facts such as an approaching sale, a removal or a halt in production should be explained in the request.
Article 68 also contains a special consequence: if the proceedings were suspended on account of the ownership action and the action is ultimately dismissed, compensation of ten percent of the value of the attached property that is the subject of the action is awarded. For this reason, the request for suspension should be prepared not merely to gain time but with documents that support the claimed right.
With which documents are ownership or a pledge right proved?
A link must be established between the document and the item
Invoices, payment receipts, delivery documents, transport records, lease or deposit agreements, fixed-asset lists, service slips and insurance records are assessed together. A single invoice is not sufficient in every case. In particular for bulk goods without serial numbers, the quantity, date and shipment relationship must be explained. In a pledge claim, the conditions for creating the right, the requirement of registration or delivery, and the scope of the right must be shown.
The administration may argue that the documents were issued after the attachment, that the sale did not actually take place, or that the property economically belongs to the debtor. Against this possibility, older bank transactions, independent carrier records and regular accounting records are important. Kinship or a shareholding relationship between companies does not by itself defeat the entire claim; the genuineness of the transaction must still be shown with concrete evidence.
Example: a leased production machine
If a machine used by a business belongs to another company, a bare statement that “it is leased” is not enough. The purchase invoice for the machine, the lease agreement, the delivery record and the regular rent payments are matched. It is shown that the serial number in the attachment record corresponds to the number in these documents. In this way, both ownership and the reason the machine is at the debtor’s workplace are explained. This example is illustrative and is not the outcome of any particular case.
Which mistakes should be avoided in the application file?
First, it must be determined by which collection office, against which debtor and for which items the attachment was carried out. The ownership claim, any rejection letter and all service records should be filed together. The protection requested should be defined separately for each item; if there are several machines, a numbered schedule should be prepared.
The seven-day response period for an attachment notice under Article 79 of Law No. 6183 and the action period under Article 66 cannot be used in place of one another. Submitting an ownership petition to the tax office does not in itself amount to the necessary application to the court. Where the property has already been sold, claims for return in kind, for its value or for damages may require a different legal examination; the protective route available before the sale cannot simply be repeated to reach a result.
Conclusion
To protect a third party’s right in a tax attachment, in whose hands the property was attached, the document on which the claim rests and the dates of the notices must be considered together. Applying to the correct court within the time limit and, where necessary, requesting suspension of the proceedings allows the ownership claim to be examined effectively.
Related articles: What Should Be Done When an Attachment Notice Arrives from the Tax Office? A Third Party’s Objection and Liability; How Is an Electronic Attachment for Tax Debt Lifted? Bank Account Freeze and Legal Remedies; Attachment of Home, Land and Vehicle for Tax Debt: Annulment Action and Lifting of the Attachment; Sale of Real Estate Attached for Tax Debt: Setting Aside the Auction, Time Limits and Routes of Application.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the invoice is in my name, is the attachment lifted immediately?
Not immediately in every case. As explained in the section “With which documents are ownership or a pledge right proved?”, the link between the invoice and the attached item and the genuineness of the transaction are assessed. Related explanation
How many days does a third party have to bring an action?
In the Article 66 process, where the property was attached in the debtor’s hands, a seven-day period applies, tied to the notice to bring an action given after rejection or objection. The details are in the section “Which route is followed if the property was attached in the debtor’s hands?”. Related explanation
If the property is in my hands, do I still bring the action?
If the conditions of Article 67 are met, the burden of bringing an action falls on the public administration where the claim is not accepted. The fifteen-day rule and the exception for persons residing together in the section “Who brings the action if the property is in the hands of a third party?” should be taken into account. Related explanation
Does an ownership action stop the sale?
Not by itself. The provisions on suspension of the proceedings, security and compensation upon dismissal in the section “Which court is applied to, and does the sale stop automatically?” are assessed separately. Related explanation
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables (Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun), in particular Articles 66–68 and 79. Revenue Administration (GİB) legislation record
- Ministry of Treasury and Finance, archive text of Law No. 6183, Articles 66–68. The dated archive copy must be assessed together with current amendments
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Article 2 and the provisions on proof