Money a shareholder gives to the company on the basis that it will be repaid may create a claim separate from the capital commitment. To collect that claim, one must first establish the legal basis of the payment, whether the company acknowledged the debt, when repayment falls due and the amount that remains. A balance in account “331 Payables to Shareholders” (“331 Ortaklara Borçlar”) matters, but the source of the claim and the date it falls due are examined separately. In loans without a fixed term in particular, overlooking the six-week waiting period, the rules on commercial actions and mediation in company–shareholder disputes, and the distinction between the five-year and ten-year limitation periods can lead to loss of rights.
This review deals mainly with repayable financing provided by shareholders to joint-stock and limited liability companies. A loan by the company to a shareholder, dividend distribution, exit compensation and the liquidation of an ordinary partnership are different legal relationships.
Can Every Payment a Shareholder Transfers to the Company Be Demanded Back?
A loan and a capital payment produce different legal consequences
In a loan for consumption, the shareholder transfers money to the company, and the company undertakes to return the agreed amount. The relationship rests on Article 386 et seq. of the Code of Obligations (TBK). Being a shareholder does not prevent a person from entering into a separate loan agreement with the company. By contrast, performing a capital commitment does not mean the same amount can be taken back whenever desired. Article 480(3) of the Commercial Code (TTK) for joint-stock companies and Article 601 for limited liability companies regulate the restrictions on returning capital. [1, 2]
A shareholder’s transfer of shares likewise does not by itself transfer or extinguish an independent loan claim. The share transfer agreement may, however, regulate the assignment of the personal claim, set-off of the debt, release or the closing of accounts. The scope of clauses such as “I have no remaining claim against the company” should be determined separately before signing. Extinguishing the share price and the claim against the company at the same figure makes it disputable afterwards what amount can be demanded.
| Nature of the payment | Key document to examine | Consequence for recovery |
|---|---|---|
| Loan of money to the company | The company’s repayment undertaking, bank transaction, due date | The balance that has fallen due can be demanded from the company. |
| Payment of committed capital | Articles of association, capital resolution, payment record | A return of capital cannot be demanded through ordinary debt collection. |
| Advance for a future capital increase | Advance agreement, increase resolution and what became of the transaction | The purpose, the terms and the fate of the transaction are decisive. |
| Additional contribution in a limited liability company | Articles of association, call and conditions of the additional contribution | Return depends on the special conditions in TTK Article 605. |
| Expense incurred on behalf of the company | Invoice issued to the company, payment instruction, personal payment | Agency, management without authority or another relationship may be considered. |
| Payment of another shareholder’s capital debt | Instruction, agreement between shareholders, transfer records | The debtor may be the other shareholder rather than the company. |
The word “capital” on a bank slip does not end the inquiry
In its decision of January 21, 2020, E. 2019/2339, K. 2020/628, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) held that, for an amount sent with a capital-payment description, the actual capital debt must be determined and any excess assessed separately. The decision was reversed because it was not clearly established which amount in the account belonged to the capital debt and because an erroneous item was added to the claim account. This decision does not show that capital can be freely taken back; it shows that the capital debt and any payment exceeding it must be separated correctly. [7]
A description as an “advance” likewise does not give a definitive answer on its own. An order advance, an operating-expense advance and a capital advance are not the same. When a shareholder demands a refund on the basis of a capital increase that never took place, the court examines whether the purpose of the payment was achieved and whether a binding capital commitment existed. Not every advance is treated as a loan subject to TBK Article 392.
What Does the Shareholders’ Current Account Mean?
Accounts 331 and 431 track the company’s debt to the shareholder
In the Uniform Chart of Accounts, account 331 tracks the amounts the business owes its shareholders for transactions outside its main field of activity. Debts with maturities longer than one year are tracked in account 431; when the maturity shortens, the corresponding transfer is made. Accounts 131 and 231, by contrast, show the company’s receivables from its shareholders. Unless it is understood from which party’s side the account is kept, no conclusion can be drawn from a “debit balance” or a “credit balance.” [6]
A short-term classification in the accounts does not by itself prove that the parties agreed on a particular calendar day. A transfer from 431 to 331 is likewise not, by itself, a new contract or a transaction that renews the company’s debt. Account movements should be broken down by the initial payment, later additions, partial repayments, interest, set-offs and corrections.
An accounting account is not the same as the current account agreement under the TTK
Under the current account agreement in TTK Article 89, the parties agree to give up demanding their claims within the scope of the agreement separately and instead to demand the balance that emerges when the account is closed. Written form is a condition of validity for this agreement. Merely opening a “shareholders’ current account” in accounting software does not create this legal agreement. [1]
The distinction has real consequences: if there is a valid current account agreement, account closing, acceptance of the balance and the special limitation period in TTK Article 101 come into play. If there is no such agreement, the legal basis, due date and applicable period of each payment recorded in the account are determined separately. Keeping an accounting account open for years does not turn all old debts into a single newly dated claim.
How Is a Claim Against the Company Proved?
The outflow of money and the repayment agreement must be shown together
As a rule, the creditor shareholder must prove that the money was given to the company and that the company undertook to repay it. A bank transfer shows the movement of the money; whether the movement was a capital payment, a loan or the performance of an earlier debt may still be argued. The description on the slip, an agreement with matching dates, correspondence of a company representative and the company’s records are therefore assessed together. [2, 3]
A description written by the sender alone does not carry the same weight in every dispute as the other party’s acknowledgment of the debt. A transfer without a description cannot be treated as worthless independently of all other evidence either. The company’s recording the same amount as a loan debt, sending a repayment plan or making a partial payment may change the assessment.
If payment was made directly to a company supplier, one must show the company’s debt to that supplier, the payment instruction given to the shareholder and which invoice the payment closed. The fact that a shareholder personally took out a bank loan does not by itself prove that the loan amount was transferred to the company or that the company assumed all of the bank interest.
The evidentiary value of a commercial ledger for and against its owner differs
Article 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) sets special rules on whether the books are kept properly, the required certifications, whether the entries corroborate one another and their relationship to the counterparty’s entries. A one-sided table that the company prepared in its own favor cannot be treated in the same way as an entry in the company’s books acknowledging a debt to the shareholder. The conditions under which improperly kept books can serve as evidence against their owner also differ from those under which they can serve as evidence in the owner’s favor. [3]
A shareholder’s status as a merchant does not follow from shareholding alone. When relying on books as evidence, the parties’ capacities and the special possibility in HMK Article 222(5) should be assessed separately. Moreover, if it is claimed that an accounting entry is not based on an actual movement of money, or that the person who made the entry acted in his or her own favor, the expert should not merely carry over the final balance; the expert should examine the supporting documents, the counter-entries and the correction vouchers.
| Document or record | What should it explain? | Problem it cannot resolve on its own |
|---|---|---|
| Loan agreement | Amount, currency, due date, interest and the parties’ intent | Signing authority and whether the money was actually delivered |
| Bank slip | Sender, recipient, date, amount and description | The source of the repayment obligation in every case |
| Journal entry and subsidiary ledger | How the debt arose, repayments and the remaining balance | Whether the underlying transaction was genuine |
| Reconciliation signed by the company | The acknowledged debt and the account date | The signatory’s authority, reservations and the scope of any release |
| E-mail or message | Payment instruction, acknowledgment of the debt, promise of repayment | The sender’s identity and authority, and the integrity of the record |
| Invoice and personal payment | The expense incurred for the company and the actual payment | For whose benefit and under what authority the expenditure was made |
The limit on proof by written instrument under HMK Article 200 is checked against the date of the transaction. Whether witnesses may be heard where there is a commencement of proof is subject to the conditions in HMK Article 202; it is particularly important that the document comes from the other party or its representative. The mere fact that other shareholders knew of the event does not in every case solve the problem of written proof. The original electronic records and their attachments, lawfully obtained, should be preserved; the context of a screenshot should not be cut off. [3]
If the Shareholder Is Also a Manager, How Should the Agreement Be Structured?
The authority to represent of the person who accepts the borrowing on behalf of the company is examined. In a company with a joint-signature requirement, acceptance by a single authorized person may cause dispute. If the lending shareholder is also a member of the board of directors of a joint-stock company, the prohibition on transacting with the company in TTK Article 395(1) and the general assembly’s permission are also considered. That the transaction brought money to the company does not by itself remove the problem of the prohibition. [1]
For a limited liability company, where a manager transacts with the company in his or her own name, representation, conflict of interest, the articles of association and the necessary company resolutions are examined together; not every provision applicable to a joint-stock company can be carried over directly to a limited liability company. For contracts between a sole shareholder and the company, the written-form rules and exceptions of TTK Articles 371(6) and 629(2) must also be taken into account. The validity of a document signed by the lender both in his or her own name and on behalf of the company should not be assumed.
TTK Article 358, by contrast, concerns a shareholder borrowing from the company. This prohibition, which runs in the opposite direction to a shareholder’s providing repayable funds to the company, cannot be used as a general provision that bars payment of a genuine shareholder claim from the outset. Whether the payment is in reality a return of capital or a withdrawal of funds from the company without consideration is a separate matter.
How Does the Six-Week Period Apply If No Due Date Was Set?
If a specific day, a notice period or maturity on first demand was agreed for repayment, that arrangement applies first. If none of these was agreed, under TBK Article 392 the company is not obliged to return the loan until six weeks have passed from the first demand. It must be proved that the notice that starts the period reached the company. [2]
The notice should explain which balance, arising from which agreement and payments, is demanded. Loans made later should not be assumed to fall automatically within an older notice. Writing “pay within three days” does not shorten the statutory six weeks unless the parties previously set up a different maturity arrangement. In choosing between a notarial notice, registered electronic mail (KEP) or another method suited to the nature of the case, proof of receipt and the rules on notices between merchants are taken into account.
In its decision of December 22, 2025, E. 2025/5316, K. 2025/6292, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) stated that the six weeks concern the date the claim falls due and that neither an action nor enforcement proceedings can be started for a claim that has not fallen due. However, regarding the application, in view of the earlier principle decision and deficiencies in the scope of the application, it ruled that there was no ground for a decision. The statements in the decision should be distinguished from its operative result. [8]
The practical consequence is that a shareholder who demands the debt for the first time through a payment order bears the risk of whether the claim had fallen due on the date of the proceedings. The later passing of the waiting period does not in every case make a proceeding that was brought too early valid. The timeline for the claim to fall due should be set up before the enforcement proceedings.
How Are Principal Interest and Default Interest Distinguished?
Principal interest is the consideration for the use of the money; default interest relates to delay in the repayment obligation. TBK Article 387 provides that interest on principal that was not agreed cannot be demanded in a non-commercial loan, while in a commercial loan interest can be demanded even if it was not agreed. For financing provided to a company’s commercial enterprise, TTK Article 19 is also taken into account. A loan expressly free of interest can nevertheless be agreed. [1, 2]
An agreement for interest-free use is not necessarily deemed to have also removed interest after default; the scope of the agreement is determined. For a fixed due date, TBK Article 117(2) is examined; in other cases, the conditions of formal notice and of the claim falling due are examined. Instead of assuming that the end of the six weeks and the start of default are the same date without explanation, one should assess the content of the first demand, the payment time stated in it and, if necessary, a separate default notice.
The interest rate and the calculation period are determined in light of Law No. 3095 and the provisions on commercial matters. The new Article 1 of that Law, which entered into force on July 31, 2026, ties statutory interest, where no rate is set in the contract, to eighty percent of the Central Bank rediscount rate on December 31 of the previous year; the condition of a difference of at least five points at the June 30 check is also taken into account. In commercial default, Article 2 applies in addition. Changing rates should not be applied as a single rate over the whole life of the debt. For foreign-currency claims, the currency, any clause requiring payment in kind, the choice of exchange rate and Article 4/a of Law No. 3095 are of separate importance. When a new foreign-currency borrowing is set up, the restrictions in foreign-exchange legislation must also be checked separately. [2, 5]
The label “shareholders’ current account” does not by itself permit compound interest. The exception in TTK Article 8(2) applies together with its conditions, such as the nature of the contract, both parties being merchants and a period of at least three months. Because an individual shareholder cannot be treated as a merchant merely for being a shareholder, this condition is especially important.
Limitation: Five Years or Ten Years?
The period is determined by the source of the claim
TBK Article 146 generally provides a ten-year period. TBK Article 147(4), however, provides a five-year period for shareholder–company claims arising from a partnership agreement and for the management and representation relationships listed in that article. The period for claims arising from a valid current account agreement under TTK Article 101 is also five years. For interest on principal, TBK Article 147(1) is also taken into account. A single period cannot be applied to all shareholder claims by looking only at the name of the account or the word “loan.” [1, 2]
The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated February 16, 2022, E. 2020/2089, K. 2022/1157, makes this risk concrete. Although the reasoning of the regional court of appeal reported in the decision said ten years on the basis of a loan relationship, the majority of the Court of Cassation, in its own assessment, stated the five-year period under TBK Article 147(4) and upheld the result, finding that limitation had been interrupted by partial payments. Reading only the lower court’s reasoning would lead to the decision being reported incorrectly. [9]
By contrast, in a decision of the same Chamber dated April 16, 2026, E. 2025/5411, K. 2026/2070, a decision containing an assessment of a loan and a ten-year period was upheld in a case where one shareholder had paid another shareholder’s capital debt. This dispute is between two shareholders, not between the company and a shareholder; it cannot be concluded that the debate has ended for all cases in which the company is the debtor. While the nature of the file is being clarified, a protective timeline should be set that does not wait for the shorter period to expire. [10]
Delaying notice does not postpone limitation indefinitely
If the claim falls due upon notice, TBK Article 149(2) ties limitation to the day on which notice could have been given. The thought “I have not sent a notice yet, so the period has not started at all” is therefore not safe. For a loan without a fixed term, the earliest time of demand and the six-week period should be assessed together with the relevant case law. The actual date of the notice should not be taken as the only data point for the start of limitation. [2, 8]
The effect of acts such as acknowledgment of the debt, partial payment, an action and enforcement proceedings in interrupting limitation is examined under TBK Articles 154–156. A creditor’s merely sending a notice does not, as a rule, interrupt limitation. The company’s carrying the same accounting balance forward into a new period should not be accepted as a new acknowledgment of the debt in every case. The effect of the mediation period on limitation and on forfeiture periods applies under the conditions in Law No. 6325. [2, 4]
Which Court Is Approached If the Company Does Not Pay?
Commercial action and mediation assessment
In its decision of December 28, 2023, E. 2022/3755, K. 2023/7763, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld a decision that treated as a commercial action an action for annulment of objection based on the claim that a person had lent money to the company while a shareholder, and dismissed it on procedural grounds because mediation, a condition precedent to suit, had not been completed. Saying “I gave my own personal money” does not show that this relationship will be heard in the civil court of first instance without mediation. [11]
Within this framework, the commercial court of first instance and pre-suit mediation under TTK Article 5/A are considered. Mediation is not a precondition for starting enforcement proceedings without a judgment; the stage of an action for annulment of objection or a direct claim action is separate. A commercial action should also not be confused with a mere commercial matter. A claim by a third person who is not a shareholder, based on an independent loan or a service relationship, may lead to a different result on subject-matter jurisdiction.
On territorial jurisdiction, the exclusive rule of HMK Article 14(2), based on the company’s seat, for disputes arising from the company–shareholder relationship is examined. If the dispute rests on another independent relationship, the general and special rules of jurisdiction are determined separately. A jurisdiction clause written into the contract cannot override exclusive jurisdiction; the fact that an individual shareholder is not a merchant also matters under HMK Article 17. [3]
Enforcement proceedings, objection and interim protection
Enforcement without a judgment can be brought for a claim that has fallen due. When the company objects, depending on whether the document in hand qualifies under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) Article 68, either the six-month route of removal of the objection or the one-year route of annulment of the objection, running from service of the objection, is considered. Not every accounting printout is a document suitable for removal of the objection. Missing the one-year period does not necessarily mean that the option of a claim action within the general limitation period has ended. [5]
For a money claim that is not secured by a pledge and has fallen due, a precautionary attachment can be requested under the conditions of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 257. If this route is to be used before the six weeks of a loan without a fixed term have passed, the conditions of the exception for claims not yet due must also be shown. A disagreement with the company is not in itself proof of asset concealment. Prima facie proof, security, enforcement of the order and the short periods for follow-up steps are part of the application plan.
Court fees, advances on costs, expert fees and, where needed, security are calculated according to the amount of the claim and the route chosen. Compensation for unjustified denial in enforcement (icra inkâr tazminatı) does not arise automatically on every objection; the request and its conditions are examined separately. The availability of appeal and further appeal is also determined by the type of decision, its service and the monetary thresholds in force on the relevant date.
How Do Liquidation, Bankruptcy and Composition with Creditors Affect a Shareholder’s Claim?
A liquidation decision does not convert a genuine loan claim into a liquidation share. The shareholder notifies the liquidator of the claim as a creditor; participating in the remaining assets because of the shareholding is separate. For debts that are known, disputed and not yet due, the protective provisions of TTK Article 541 are taken into account. Distributions cannot be made to shareholders without regard to the company’s debts. [1]
In bankruptcy, the bankruptcy estate and the schedule of ranking take the place of individual enforcement. Shareholder status alone gives no privilege to a loan claim. Absent a pledge, a statutory privilege or a valid subordination agreement, a genuine loan claim is assessed in the rank appropriate to its nature. The effect of the opening of bankruptcy on the claim falling due and on enforcement proceedings is determined under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Articles 193, 195 and 206. [5]
In over-indebtedness, a declaration of acceptance of a rank behind all other creditors given under TTK Article 376(3) is not the same as a release that wipes out the debt. Nevertheless, without examining the scope of such a declaration and the court and expert review, it cannot be assumed that the shareholder’s claim can be paid at the same time as other creditors. Early collection from the company, or obtaining security afterwards for an old debt, can also create a risk of avoidance as against other creditors under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Articles 279–280.
During a moratorium in composition with creditors (konkordato), the prohibition on enforcement and the stay of pending proceedings apply within the framework of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 294 and its exceptions. The shareholder should notify the commissioner of the claim with its supporting documents and should observe the fifteen-day notification period running from the announcement under Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law Article 299. A balance-sheet entry does not mean that a disputed claim has become final. Whether the claim is counted in the vote, and its effect on the payment arrangement of the confirmed plan, are assessed separately. [5]
What Changes If the Debt Is Added to Capital or Treated as Thin Capitalization for Tax Purposes?
When a shareholder’s claim is converted into capital through a valid capital increase and set-off, the amount comes under the capital-law regime instead of being collected as a loan claim. For this, the genuine claim, the capital commitment, the possibility of set-off and the company’s transactions must be shown in concrete terms. Merely renaming the debt through an accounting voucher does not show that all legal conditions have been met. Atesagaoglu and Armagan likewise distinguish the set-off of a claim against the company against a capital debt from the transfer of a claim against a third person as capital. [1, 12]
Thin capitalization in tax law is different. Article 12 of the Corporate Tax Law (KVK) attaches special consequences to the part of borrowings obtained from shareholders or related persons and used in the business that exceeds three times the equity at the beginning of the period, if the conditions are met; the statutory exceptions are examined separately. This tax characterization does not, by itself, mean that a capital increase was made in the trade registry or that the shareholder gave up a private-law claim. The consequences for interest, exchange differences, withholding and expense recognition must be calculated separately according to the nature of the parties and the specific transaction. [13]
Conclusion
In recovering money a shareholder has given to the company, what is decisive is to establish, with documents, the true legal basis of the payment and the repayment obligation. Capital, advance and expense items should be separated; the shareholders’ current account should be reconciled with bank movements; the due date, interest and limitation should be determined separately. If there are share transfer, release, conversion-to-capital or subordination agreements, the collection strategy should be built together with them. A complete account and the right timing of enforcement matter as much as the existence of the claim.
Related articles: Unpaid Capital Debt: Interest, Default and Forfeiture of Shares; Dividend Claim Against the Company and Shareholder Rights; Collecting a Claim from a Company in Liquidation: Action, Enforcement and Creditor Rights; Capital Increase and Pre-emption Right: Protection of the Shareholder.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to leave the company to get back the money I gave it?
For a genuine loan claim that has fallen due, leaving the company is not required as a rule. Being a shareholder and being a creditor are separate capacities; special conditions in the contract and the company’s financial position are examined separately.
Is appearing as a creditor in account 331 enough to win the case?
On its own it does not guarantee a definitive result. Whose entry it is, the supporting documents, repayments, the company’s acknowledgment of the debt and the evidentiary requirements for the books are assessed together.
Must I wait six weeks for the debt, whether I want to or not?
No. If there is no specific repayment day, notice period or maturity-on-first-demand agreement, the six-week arrangement in TBK Article 392 applies. If there is a valid due-date agreement, that agreement is taken as the basis first.
Is the limitation period for a shareholder’s claim definitely ten years?
No. The distinction between a loan, a partnership agreement and a current account agreement, and the case law, must be taken into account. Because there is also a Court of Cassation decision that takes the five-year period as the basis for a company–shareholder loan, one should not wait in reliance on ten years.
Can the company refuse to pay my debt because it is making losses?
A statement of loss does not by itself remove a loan debt that has fallen due. However, over-indebtedness, composition with creditors, bankruptcy, a subordination agreement or the genuine transaction being capital may change the outcome of payment and enforcement.
Can I collect the company’s debt directly from another shareholder?
Unless the other shareholder separately assumed the debt, gave a valid personal security or there is an independent ground of liability, the company’s debt does not automatically become that shareholder’s personal debt. Who is indebted should be determined at the first stage.
After converting my loan to capital, can I demand the same money again?
For an amount validly converted into capital, repayment cannot be demanded as with an ordinary loan claim. An allegation that the transaction is invalid, or the special return routes of capital law, require separate examination.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), in particular Articles 4, 5, 5/A, 8, 19, 89–101, 371, 376, 395, 480, 541, 601, 605 and 629. Legislation Information System.
- Law No. 6098, Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Articles 89, 117, 120, 146–156, 183–184 and 386–392. Legislation Information System.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Articles 6, 10, 14, 17, 190, 199–202 and 222. Legislation Information System.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Articles 16 and 18/A. Legislation Information System.
- Law No. 2004, Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), in particular Articles 67–68, 193, 195, 206, 257–264, 279–280 and 294–308/c; Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest (Kanuni Faiz ve Temerrüt Faizine İlişkin Kanun), Articles 1–4/a. Law No. 2004 · Law No. 3095, current official text.
- Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı), Uniform Chart of Accounts annexed to Accounting System Application General Communiqué No. 1 (1 Sıra No.lu Muhasebe Sistemi Uygulama Genel Tebliği); accounts 131, 231, 331 and 431. Official text.
- Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), January 21, 2020, E. 2019/2339, K. 2020/628. Full decision, De Jure legal database.
- Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), December 22, 2025, E. 2025/5316, K. 2025/6292. Full decision, De Jure legal database.
- Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), February 16, 2022, E. 2020/2089, K. 2022/1157. Full decision, De Jure legal database.
- Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), April 16, 2026, E. 2025/5411, K. 2026/2070. Full decision, De Jure legal database. The decision concerns a dispute between two shareholders.
- Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), December 28, 2023, E. 2022/3755, K. 2023/7763. Full decision, De Jure legal database. Links to the database may require an account.
- Erdem Ateşağaoğlu and Aylin Armağan, “Kurumlar Vergisi Matrahında İndirim Hakkı Veren Sermaye Artırımları Bakımından Ortak Alacağının Şirket Sermayesine Eklenmesi” (Adding a Shareholder’s Claim to Company Capital in Respect of Capital Increases Giving a Right to Deduction from the Corporate Tax Base), İnönü University Faculty of Law Journal (İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 10(1), 2019, pp. 50–60; in particular pp. 53–55. DOI: 10.21492/inuhfd.520834. The work was used for the legal distinction in converting a claim into capital.
- Law No. 5520, Corporate Tax Law (Kurumlar Vergisi Kanunu), Articles 11–13; Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı), “Article 12 — Thin capitalization.” Official text of the article.