The Court of Accounts published the Audit Report of the Revenue Administration for 2025.
In the report, during the audits carried out by the provincial tax offices affiliated to the Revenue Administration, it was determined that the start date of the deferment interest in the refund of excessive or inappropriately collected taxes resulting from taxpayer errors was determined contrary to the legislation and that this practice could lead to "undue interest" payments.
According to the Tax Procedure Law No. 213, if excessive or inappropriate collection is due to the taxpayer's own mistake, interest is calculated not from the date the tax is collected, but from the date the taxpayer applies for correction.
On the other hand, the Court of Accounts determined that in some tax offices, deferment interest is started based on the "collection date" instead of the "correction application date" in refund requests arising from the taxpayer's own fault, such as repeated payments or material errors in the declarations.
The report emphasized that this situation "leads the state to bear an unfair financing cost for the time the money remains idle."
MALFUNCTION HAS ALSO BEEN DETECTED DURING THE COURT PROCESSES: "THERE IS A RISK OF CREATING PUBLIC HARM"
The Court of Accounts identified problems in the implementation of the legislation regarding the interest start date in cases filed in tax courts.
The report stated that some courts ignored the relevant provision of the Tax Procedure Law and decided that the interest would be charged from the date of collection, and in these cases, the legal units of the administration and the relevant services did not develop sufficient legal arguments in all their petitions during the appeal and appeal processes.
It was noted that in some cases, clear violations of legislation regarding the interest start date were not even subject to objection in the higher courts and therefore the erroneous decisions became final.
The Court of Accounts stated that it was argued that the erroneous interest payments in question were made on the grounds of "the obligation to implement the court decision", but that the failure to effectively use the appeal, appeal and decision correction methods against court decisions clearly contrary to the provision of law is incompatible with the principle of effective, economic and efficient use of public resources.
In the report, it was emphasized that payments made based on decisions that became final as a result of the legislative provision not being mentioned in the defenses, carried the risk of causing public harm under the name of "obligation to implement the judicial decision".
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION: NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN
In the response of the Revenue Administration, it was stated that full compliance with the relevant provision of the Tax Procedure Law should be ensured in the refund of excessive or inappropriately collected taxes.
In the answer, it was emphasized that the interest start date is the taxpayer's correction application date, especially in cases caused by taxpayer error, and it was stated that the necessary instructions were given to the provincial organization in this context.
The Presidency also stated that all legal remedies will be used effectively against interest start dates contrary to the provisions of the law in court decisions, and follow-up and control processes will be continued in order to prevent similar errors.
The Court of Accounts stated that "undue interests, calculated over long periods between the collection date and the correction application date, create a financial burden on the Treasury" and noted that the date distinction in the provision in the relevant law should be taken into consideration when preparing correction and refund files in provincial units.
The report also stated that the provision in question should be made the "main defense basis" by legal units during the judicial stage and that the processes that cause "undue payments" should be followed within the framework of liability law.
