An objection to a special procedural irregularity penalty (özel usulsüzlük cezası) begins by establishing which obligation was breached, on what date and by which act. Failing to issue an invoice, breaching the electronic document rules, failing to provide information and failing to document payment transactions are not subject to the same penalty calculation. The general time limit for an action against a penalty notice is 30 days. Beyond the penalty amount, the nature of the finding, the correct provision, the addressee and the legislation in force on the date of the act must also be examined. 1 2
Special procedural irregularity penalties may arise even when no tax has been lost. For that reason, the defence that “the tax has been paid” is not, on its own, sufficient in every file. On the other hand, a difference in the tax base found in a tax inspection does not by itself show that all the conditions of a special procedural irregularity penalty are met. The assessment of the tax and the breach of a document or notification obligation must be evaluated separately.
How the Special Procedural Irregularity Penalty Differs from Other Tax Penalties
General procedural irregularities regulated in VUK Article 352, special procedural irregularities based mainly on document order in Article 353, and breaches of information, production, electronic-obligation and record-keeping duties under repeated Article 355 are different provisions. A tax loss penalty (vergi ziyaı cezası) is a separate sanction linked to tax not being accrued in full or on time. 1
More than one penalty may arise in the same file. The legal basis and calculation of each penalty must be shown separately. Whether sanctions for a single act are combined or applied separately is examined under the relevant statutory provisions. General statements such as “two penalties cannot arise from the same event” or “every penalty is always applied together” do not replace a correct assessment.
What should be checked in the penalty notice?
The type of penalty, the legal basis and sub-paragraph, the date of the act, the finding information, the addressee and the amount are checked. In particular, where an automatically generated penalty notice contains only a brief explanation, the examination on which the finding rests (yoklama), the record, the electronic log or the examination report should be requested. The difficulty in accessing the information needed for the defence should be specified; the time limit for an action must not be allowed to lapse while documents are being requested.
Applying the wrong sub-paragraph is not necessarily merely a formal defect. The elements of the breach, the amount of the penalty and the exceptions may differ between sub-paragraphs. Where the administration describes one obligation but relies on a different sanction provision, that inconsistency must be clearly shown.
Council of State (Danıştay) decision: comparing penalties for the same act
In its decision E.2023/1711, K.2024/947 of 23 October 2024, the Tax Litigation Chambers Board of the Council of State (Danıştay Vergi Dava Daireleri Kurulu) jointly assessed a tax loss penalty for failing to present books and documents for 2015 and a repeated Article 355 special procedural irregularity penalty. The majority accepted that penalties arising from the same act must be compared under VUK Article 336 and the heavier one applied, and found that removing the special procedural irregularity penalty was the appropriate outcome. The dissenting opinion argued for reversal of that part. 5
The importance of the decision lies in not confusing the separate-penalty exception in Article 353 with repeated Article 355. The result cannot be generalised to all special procedural irregularity penalties: the existence of the same act, the correct penalty provision and the legislation on the date of the event must be determined. The decision also does not mean that no obligation to produce documents existed. In the same file, a reversal was ordered for the part of the tax loss penalty exceeding one times the amount relating to invoices not presented to the court. 5
How Is a Claim of Not Issuing or Not Receiving an Invoice Examined?
The concrete transaction and the duty to issue a document
First, it is examined whether there was a transaction requiring a document and whether the period for issuing it has passed. The date of the transaction, the delivery of goods or performance of services, the counterparty and the amount are the basic elements of the finding. A bank transaction or a stock difference, taken apart from other evidence, does not in every case prove the same document breach.
If the taxpayer maintains that an invoice was issued, it must show the document number, date, recipient and amount, and its link to the relevant transaction. Presenting an invoice for a different sale is not sufficient. The administration may also explain why the document presented does not match the transaction identified. The evidence list should therefore contain not only an invoice sample but also the contract, delivery, collection and accounting entry together. For details, see the article on the claim of using a fake invoice and VAT deduction.
Is the number of findings the same as the number of documents?
Under the Article 353 regime as amended by Law No. 7524, for certain document breaches the penalties increase with the number of findings and there are annual caps. Several documents identified in one record and separate findings made on different dates are not the same thing. The order of the findings, their dates and the document types must be checked. 1 3
In an objection it is useful to open a separate line for each finding. If it is argued that a higher tier was applied without a prior finding record, that record may be requested from the administration. Conversely, the fact that several documents appear in a single finding does not entirely remove the per-document calculation the law provides. The function of the finding tier and the function of the number of documents must not be confused.
Which distinctions between e-invoices and e-archive invoices matter?
The obligation to move to electronic documents
First, it is determined whether the taxpayer was subject to the electronic document regime on the date of the act. Turnover, type of activity, any special transition arrangement and the start date are examined together. Being subject to the electronic document obligation in a later year does not show that the same obligation existed in an earlier year. The text in force on the date of the act of the communiqués and amendments that apply should be used. 1
Issuing a paper document instead of an electronic one, not issuing a document at all, and issuing it late are different possibilities. Each has its own sanction provision and exception, which must be examined. The technical file should retain the e-document number, creation and transmission times, status codes and any cancellation or objection records.
Does a system failure remove the penalty?
A problem in the taxpayer's system or in a private integrator's system does not, on its own, remove every penalty. The time, scope and effect of the failure on the relevant document, and any alternative procedure the law allows, are examined. A GİB announcement, the integrator's incident record, the support request and the system logs should corroborate one another.
The administration may argue that the document could have been issued by another means, or that the delay began before the failure. The taxpayer must address these possibilities too. A general statement sent later, such as “our systems experienced a disruption”, does not always explain why a specific document could not be issued in time. A causal link between the failure and the legal obligation must be established.
Is a formal warning required for penalties for failing to provide information or documents?
For penalties under repeated Article 355, it matters which information or document was requested, on what legal authority, whether the request was properly notified, and whether the period given has expired. The rule that the consequence of a penalty must be stated in a written request must be read together with the exception under which no separate individual notice is required for obligations announced by communiqué. 1
The statement in every file that “no separate warning was sent to me” does not produce the same result. Failing to answer an individual request for information differs from failing to comply with an electronic notification duty imposed by a general communiqué. The objection must explain which regulation created the obligation.
If a partial or late answer was given
Where part of the requested information was provided, it must be determined which part remains missing. A second request and a repeated penalty, if any, the earlier request, the additional period and the new breach are examined separately. Where electronic returns or notifications were filed late, special reduction and correction provisions may exist, so the general penalty amount alone should not be looked at. The specific provision to apply is determined by the type of document and the date of its submission.
Where documents are held by a financial adviser (mali müşavir), the submission system did not work, or staff have left, these situations are assessed on concrete records. Rather than leaving a request for documents unanswered, a list of the documents that exist and a reasoned account of the gaps should be submitted within the time limit.
Proof of payment (tevsik) and use of another person’s payment system
The proof rules for collections and payments made through intermediary financial institutions are examined in terms of their scope, the monetary threshold, the total amount of the transaction and the parties. Treating each instalment of a payment split into instalments as an independent transaction is not always correct. The regulation in force on the date of the breach and any applicable exception govern. 1
Where the claim concerns the use of someone else’s account or payment system, the capacities of the person who collected the money, the person whose account or device was used, and the person who benefited from the transaction must be separated. The sanctions introduced by Law No. 7524 in these areas must not be read as applying a single penalty to every bank transfer. The real nature of the transaction, the legal exception and the correct addressee are examined. 3
How are the penalty amount, the limitation period and more favourable legislation assessed?
Penalty amounts differ from year to year because of revaluation and changes in legislation. That is why this article does not give a single amount for “all special procedural irregularity penalties”. The calculation must show the date of the act, the relevant sub-paragraph, the taxpayer group, the number of documents or transactions, the finding tier and the upper limit. Applying the current year’s amount automatically to an old breach is not correct.
VUK Articles 374, 353 and repeated Article 355 set a five-year period starting from the beginning of the year following the year in which the irregularity was committed. Special provisions and conditions relating to communiqués are assessed separately. Whether a later amendment produces a more favourable result must also be examined within the framework of the time-based application of the sanction. 1
Action, reduction and settlement options
The general time limit for an action is 30 days from the day after notification of the penalty notice. The petition must define each penalty, its date and its amount, and the scope of the requested annulment must be clear. It should not be assumed that an administrative application preserves the time limit. The rule in Article 27(4) of İYUK on suspension of collection is assessed together with the nature of the act challenged. 2 For more detail, see the article on how a tax lawsuit is filed.
A reduction under VUK Article 376 depends on payment and application conditions. In 2026, for usulsüzlük and special procedural irregularity penalties that do not exceed the settlement threshold of 40,000 TL, that is, penalties of 40,000 TL and below, a 75 percent reduction applies if the conditions are met; the threshold is assessed per act. It should not be assumed that every special procedural irregularity penalty falls within the reduction or settlement scope; the special exception concerning the security obligation in Article 153/A is one example. 1 4 For the settlement process, see the article on tax penalty settlement and reduction.
Example: assessment transaction by transaction instead of a single total
In a hypothetical file, an electronic-document breach, a failure to answer an information request and a proof-of-payment breach are notified on the same day. Giving the same objection text to all three is not correct. For the first, the electronic-document obligation and the transaction date; for the second, the request, notification and answer; and for the third, the payment relationship and any exception must be examined. The choice between a reduction and a lawsuit should also be made deliberately for each transaction.
Conclusion
A special procedural irregularity penalty cannot be assessed on the total amount alone. The correct provision, the date of the act, the method of finding, the addressee and the calculation elements must be examined together. In e-document and information-request files, preserving electronic records is decisive; in lawsuit and reduction options, correctly managing the calendar that starts with notification is what matters.
Frequently Asked Questions
If no tax has been lost, can a special procedural irregularity penalty still be imposed?
It can, if the relevant obligation was breached. The distinction described in the section on how the special procedural irregularity penalty differs from other tax penalties should be applied. Return to the related section
Does issuing a paper invoice instead of an e-invoice always lead to the same penalty?
The obligation, the date of the act and the exceptions are examined. No single conclusion can be drawn without the check described in the section on the obligation to move to electronic documents. Return to the related section
Is presenting a system failure document sufficient?
The effect of the failure on the relevant transaction and time period must be shown. The analysis of the date and of alternative transactions in the section “Does a system failure remove the penalty?” is necessary. Return to the related section
Is a separate formal warning required for every penalty for failing to provide information?
Individual requests and obligations announced through a general regulation are distinguished. The exception described in the section on formal warnings is important. Return to the related section
Is there a 75 percent reduction for a penalty of small amount?
It is possible within the 2026 threshold and the statutory conditions. The act-based assessment and the out-of-scope penalties described in the section on action, reduction and settlement options must be checked. Return to the related section
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 213 on Tax Procedure (Vergi Usul Kanunu); in particular Articles 231, 353, 355 (repeated), 366, 374, 376 and supplementary Article 1. Source text
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu); in particular Articles 7–8 and 27. Source text
- Law No. 7524; in particular Articles 11–14. Source text
- GİB, current record of VUK supplementary Article 1; 2026 threshold of 40,000 TL and incremental reduction (artırımlı indirim) under VUK General Communiqué No. 588 (588 Sıra No.lu VUK Genel Tebliği). Source text
- Council of State Tax Litigation Chambers Board (Danıştay Vergi Dava Daireleri Kurulu), 23 October 2024, E.2023/1711, K.2024/947; majority reasoning, operative part and dissenting opinion reviewed together. Source text