

A foreign shareholder receives a Turkish payment order for company customs debt. Learn when personal liability may arise, how limited-company shareholder liability differs from director liability, and what defenses may be available.
A foreign investor may be surprised to receive a personal payment order for customs debts originally owed by a Turkish company.
The immediate question is:
Can Turkish authorities collect a company’s customs debt from a foreign shareholder personally?
The answer depends heavily on the type of company and the shareholder’s legal position.
For a Turkish limited liability company, Article 35 of Law No. 6183 provides a specific public-debt liability regime. Where a public receivable cannot be collected, or is understood to be uncollectible, from the company, limited-company shareholders may be pursued in proportion to their capital shares. Official Revenue Administration guidance expressly confirms this framework.
However, ordinary share ownership in a joint-stock company should not automatically be treated in the same way. Likewise, a shareholder who also served as a manager, director or legal representative may face a different liability analysis.
Therefore, receiving a payment order does not mean the shareholder should immediately accept personal liability.
The correct strategy is:
Identify the company type → identify the statutory basis of the payment order → verify shareholding and relevant periods → determine whether the company debt was properly pursued first → calculate the shareholder’s potential share-based liability → distinguish shareholder liability from legal-representative liability → challenge the payment order within the applicable procedural period.
The shareholder should obtain the complete payment order and identify:
The notification date should be recorded immediately because public-debt enforcement remedies can involve short procedural periods.
This is one of the most important questions.
Is the company:
The answer can fundamentally change the personal-liability analysis.
Under Article 35 of Law No. 6183, shareholders of limited companies can be held responsible for qualifying public receivables that cannot be collected or are understood to be uncollectible from the company.
The liability is generally linked to the shareholder’s capital percentage.
For example, if the relevant unpaid public debt is TRY 10 million and the foreign investor held a 30% share, the starting point for Article 35 analysis may be a potential TRY 3 million share-based exposure rather than automatic liability for the entire TRY 10 million.
The actual calculation must nevertheless consider the relevant periods, share transfers and other statutory conditions.
Article 35 is not simply a mechanism allowing the administration to bypass the company and immediately pursue shareholders.
Official Revenue Administration guidance states that, before proceeding against limited-company shareholders, the public receivable must be shown to be wholly or partially uncollectible, or understood to be uncollectible, from the company.
This is a major defense issue.
Obtain evidence concerning:
The administration’s conclusion that the debt cannot be collected from the company should be examined rather than assumed.
The fact that the company did not voluntarily pay its customs debt does not by itself answer whether the statutory conditions for pursuing the shareholder have been satisfied.
The collection history matters.
Determine whether the Turkish company still owns:
Evidence of substantial corporate assets may become relevant when reviewing the personal payment order.
Obtain:
Do not rely on the company’s current ownership structure alone.
Historical ownership may be decisive.
For each customs debt, determine:
Import date
customs declaration
date customs debt arose
additional assessment date
payment due date
shareholder at the relevant time.
A customs audit conducted in 2026 may concern imports made several years earlier.
Suppose a company imported goods in 2023 but Customs discovered an alleged underpayment during a 2026 post-clearance audit.
The fact that the assessment was issued in 2026 does not mean the shareholder structure in 2026 is automatically the only relevant ownership structure.
The historical dates must be analyzed carefully.
Article 35 contains specific rules concerning transfers of limited-company shares.
Official Revenue Administration guidance states that, under the statutory framework, a transferor and transferee may face joint responsibility in relation to qualifying pre-transfer public receivables, subject to the applicable conditions.
Therefore, buying or selling shares does not automatically eliminate historical public-debt exposure.
A foreign investor may say:
“I sold my shares three years ago, so this cannot concern me.”
That conclusion should not be made without reviewing:
Conversely, a person who acquired shares after certain customs transactions may need to analyze whether Article 35’s share-transfer provisions create exposure.
The purchase date alone does not resolve the question.
For every customs debt, prepare:
| Issue | Relevant Information |
|---|---|
| Customs declaration | Date |
| Customs debt arose | Date |
| Debt became payable | Date |
| Shareholder | Name |
| Share percentage | Percentage |
| Share transfer | Date |
| Company collection status | Status |
| Personal payment order | Amount |
This is particularly important when the company underwent several ownership changes.
There are two potentially different routes:
Article 35 — limited-company shareholder liability
and
Article 35 bis — legal representative liability.
These should never be treated as interchangeable.
Official collection guidance expressly distinguishes limited-company shareholder liability based on capital share from legal-representative liability.
Suppose a foreign investor owns 40% of a limited company and also serves as a manager with representation authority.
The administration may potentially examine:
shareholder liability
and
legal-representative liability
under different statutory provisions.
The defense must determine which provision the payment order actually relies upon.
Limited-company shareholder liability under Article 35 is generally proportionate to the capital share.
Legal-representative liability under Article 35 bis follows a different framework and can potentially concern the entire qualifying public receivable.
Official Revenue Administration guidance expressly distinguishes these two regimes.
This distinction can dramatically affect the amount at stake.
Assume:
Company customs debt: TRY 20 million
Foreign shareholder’s interest: 20%
Foreign shareholder was never a manager or legal representative.
The analysis should not simply proceed on the assumption that the investor owes the entire TRY 20 million.
The Article 35 share-based framework and all statutory prerequisites should be examined.
Now assume the same investor:
A separate legal-representative analysis may become necessary.
Therefore, the trade registry and representation records are essential.
An ordinary shareholder in a Turkish joint-stock company should not automatically be subjected to the limited-company shareholder rule merely because the company owes Customs money.
The company’s legal form must therefore be verified before accepting the payment order’s theory of liability.
A foreign investor may simultaneously be:
Each capacity has different legal significance.
The authority should identify which capacity creates the alleged personal liability.
If the foreign shareholder was also a board member or manager, obtain:
The legal-representative analysis depends on actual statutory and registered authority, not merely a corporate title.
Even if personal liability could theoretically exist, the amount being collected must still be correct.
Review whether the underlying customs debt was:
Collect:
The shareholder’s payment order cannot be properly analyzed in isolation.
Prepare:
Original customs assessment
minus
payments
minus
court cancellations
minus
settlement reductions
minus
other legally credited amounts
equals
actual outstanding debt.
Then calculate the shareholder’s potential statutory exposure.
A payment order may be based on outdated ownership information.
For example:
Authority assumes 50% ownership
while
historical records establish 25%.
That difference can materially change potential Article 35 exposure.
If the company’s capital structure changed during the relevant period, determine the shareholder’s percentage at the legally relevant time.
Do not automatically apply today’s percentage to historical customs debts.
The fact that a foreign shareholder invested TRY 5 million does not necessarily mean personal public-debt liability is limited to TRY 5 million.
Article 35 operates by reference to the relevant capital-share ratio under the statutory framework, rather than simply the amount originally paid for the investment.
Identify every component:
The payment order should provide a legally supportable breakdown.
Do not assume every penalty automatically follows exactly the same liability analysis without examining its legal basis and procedural history.
Obtain the original penalty decision.
Record when and how the foreign shareholder personally received the payment order.
A notice previously served on the company is different from the later enforcement measure directed against the shareholder.
Foreign shareholders may live permanently outside Turkey.
Review:
Do not rely solely on when the investor first informally learned about the debt.
Public-debt payment orders are deadline-sensitive.
The foreign shareholder should immediately obtain legal review rather than spending weeks negotiating informally with the former company or customs broker.
Depending on the facts, possible issues may include:
If the payment order progresses to compulsory collection, the shareholder’s personal assets may potentially become subject to enforcement where valid personal liability exists.
Check immediately whether any bank attachment has already occurred.
Determine whether the authorities have imposed or attempted:
If enforcement has already begun, the payment-order challenge and attachment strategy should be coordinated.
Where the payment order is seriously disputed and personal enforcement is imminent or already underway, assess whether suspension of execution or another interim remedy is available.
Do not automatically assume that filing a case stops all collection activity.
A person should not be pursued merely because they are a foreign investor.
The same statutory liability framework must be applied based on:
Nationality does not replace these requirements.
A foreign investor who acquired a Turkish company may have contractual protection through:
These contractual rights do not necessarily prevent the authorities from pursuing a person who is legally liable, but they may provide recovery rights against the seller.
A foreign investor may have failed to discover historical customs debts during acquisition due diligence.
That commercial failure does not itself create statutory personal liability.
The liability must still satisfy the requirements of Law No. 6183.
If the shareholder ultimately pays a debt connected with pre-acquisition customs liabilities, review possible recovery from:
This is separate from challenging the government’s payment order.
If Customs has pursued the foreign shareholder once, determine whether the company has additional unpaid public receivables.
A comprehensive review can prevent multiple unexpected payment orders.
For complex cases, prepare:
Debt
Declaration date
Debt date
Payment date
Company type
Shareholder
Share percentage
Manager status
Company collection efforts
Outstanding amount
Personal demand.
This can reveal overbroad enforcement quickly.
Artificial transfers designed to defeat public-debt collection can create serious additional risks.
Use lawful remedies:
The recommended sequence is:
Obtain the payment order
→ record the notification date
→ identify the company type
→ identify Article 35 or Article 35 bis basis
→ obtain historical shareholder records
→ determine share percentages
→ review share transfers
→ determine whether the shareholder was also a manager or legal representative
→ map customs debts to relevant periods
→ review collection attempts against the company
→ recalculate the outstanding debt
→ identify procedural and substantive defenses
→ challenge personal enforcement promptly
→ seek urgent protection where necessary.
Potentially, depending particularly on the company’s legal form and the shareholder’s role. For limited companies, Article 35 of Law No. 6183 provides a specific regime for qualifying public debts that cannot be collected or are understood to be uncollectible from the company.
Under the Article 35 shareholder regime, liability is generally linked to the shareholder’s capital-share percentage. A separate and potentially broader analysis may arise if the shareholder was also a legal representative.
Article 35 concerns public receivables that cannot be collected, or are understood to be uncollectible, from the limited company. The collection measures taken against the company should therefore be reviewed carefully.
The share-transfer date, the date the public receivable arose, when it became payable and the applicable Article 35 rules must all be examined. A former shareholder should not assume that a share transfer automatically eliminates every historical exposure.
Historical share-transfer rules require careful analysis. The relevant dates cannot be determined solely from when Customs later discovered or assessed the debt.
The Article 35 limited-company shareholder regime should not simply be transferred to an ordinary joint-stock-company shareholder. Any alleged personal liability requires identification of a specific legal basis.
Then legal-representative liability may need to be analyzed separately under Article 35 bis. Official Revenue Administration guidance expressly distinguishes share-based limited-company liability from legal-representative liability.
Yes. Historical trade registry records, share ledgers, capital changes and share-transfer documentation should be used to establish the correct percentage for the relevant period.
If personal liability is validly established and compulsory collection progresses, personal enforcement may follow. A foreign shareholder receiving a payment order should therefore act before enforcement reaches personal assets.
First determine why the shareholder is supposedly personally liable. A limited-company shareholder, a joint-stock-company shareholder and a shareholder who also serves as legal representative can face fundamentally different legal regimes. The authority’s statutory basis, the company’s collection history, the investor’s historical share percentage and the relevant customs-debt dates should all be verified before accepting any personal liability.
Foreign shareholder enforcement may involve:
Personal payment orders
Limited-company public debts
Customs debt liability
Historical customs assessments
Share-transfer liability
Legal representative liability
Personal bank attachments
Suspension of execution
and public-debt litigation.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign shareholders, international investors, multinational groups and former shareholders who receive personal payment orders relating to customs debts of Turkish companies.
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in reviewing payment orders, determining whether personal shareholder liability legally exists, reconstructing historical shareholding periods, distinguishing shareholder liability from director liability, challenging incorrect amounts and seeking urgent protection against enforcement directed at personal assets.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey