Company Formation in Turkey for Foreigners: Law and Steps

Note on sources. The official legal texts of Türkiye are in Turkish. Each provision below is quoted verbatim in Turkish (the authoritative text) and followed by an unofficial English translation for convenience only. Where exact wording matters, the Turkish text governs.

Can a Foreigner Open a Company in Turkey?

Yes. Company formation in Turkey is open to foreign investors on the same terms as domestic ones: Law No. 4875 (Foreign Direct Investment Law) provides that foreign direct investment is free and that foreign investors are subject to equal treatment with domestic investors. A foreign investor therefore uses the same company types, the same minimum capital and the same registration procedure as a Turkish investor. Exceptions are introduced only by international treaties and special laws.

The practical answer to most formation questions sits in three places rather than one. The company type and the formation mechanics are in the Turkish Commercial Code; the minimum capital in force is in a Presidential decree that sits on top of the Code; and the status of the investor is in Law No. 4875. A guide that reads only the Code quotes capital figures that no longer govern a new incorporation.

Once the company exists, the tax position follows the type of liability, so see taxation of foreign companies in Türkiye. If the plan is representation without trading, compare the liaison office; for location-based incentives see investment zones.

Is This You?

This guide is relevant if you are a foreign real or legal person wishing to set up a company in Türkiye, deciding between a new company and a branch, buying into an existing Turkish company, or checking whether sector-specific permits apply before committing capital.

Is Foreign Investment in Turkey Free?

The legal basis of foreign investment is the principle of freedom:

“Yabancı yatırımcılar tarafından Türkiye’de doğrudan yabancı yatırım yapılması serbesttir.”

(4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3)

Unofficial translation: “Foreign direct investment by foreign investors in Türkiye is free.”

This principle establishes that foreign investment is, as a rule, not subject to prior permission. Unless international treaties or special laws provide otherwise, a foreign investor is free to invest in Türkiye. There is no general screening authority standing between a foreign founder and the trade registry, and no approval step in the ordinary formation file that a Turkish founder would not also face.

100% Foreign Ownership and Equal Treatment

The second core safeguard, complementing the freedom principle, is the prohibition of discrimination:

“Yabancı yatırımcılar yerli yatırımcılarla eşit muameleye tabidirler.”

(4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3)

Unofficial translation: “Foreign investors are subject to equal treatment with domestic investors.”

This national treatment principle means a foreign investor cannot be subjected to more onerous rules than a Turkish investor. In terms of company types, formation procedure and general commercial law, the foreign investor is on the same footing as the domestic investor.

It also answers the question most often asked before the capital question. Neither the Code nor Law No. 4875 requires a Turkish shareholder, a Turkish director or a local partner in an ordinary company. A company may be wholly foreign-owned because nothing in the general regime says otherwise, not because a provision grants permission. Restrictions exist where a special law creates them for a particular sector, which is why sector legislation is checked separately rather than assumed.

Who Counts as a Foreign Investor?

Before the company question, the status question, and the definition is wider than most expect: 4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.2 — Definition of foreign investor

“a) Yabancı yatırımcı: Türkiye’de doğrudan yabancı yatırım yapan, 1) Yabancı ülkelerin vatandaşlığına sahip olan gerçek kişiler ile yurt dışında ikamet eden Türk vatandaşlarını, 2) Yabancı ülkelerin kanunlarına göre kurulmuş tüzel kişileri ve uluslararası kuruluşları,”

(4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.2)

Unofficial translation: “a) Foreign investor: making direct foreign investment in Türkiye, 1) natural persons holding the nationality of foreign countries and Turkish citizens resident abroad, 2) legal persons established under the laws of foreign countries and international organisations,”

Note the second limb of sub-paragraph 1: Turkish citizens resident abroad are counted as foreign investors. A dual national or an expatriate Turkish citizen planning an investment does not automatically fall outside this Law. On how a second citizenship is annotated in the civil register, and when Blue Card rights apply instead of citizenship, see how to get Turkish citizenship. Where the company itself is the investment, a fixed capital investment of USD 500,000 or employment for at least fifty people is one of the seven routes to citizenship; the amounts and determining authorities are set out in Turkish citizenship by investment. Where the company is instead the vehicle for acquiring real estate, a different regime applies again: a Turkey-established company in which foreigners hold fifty percent or more acquires under Article 36 of Law No. 2644, limited to the activities stated in its articles of association rather than to an area cap, and the comparison with the rules for individuals is set out in buying property in Turkey.

Company Types in Turkey: LLC or Joint Stock Company?

The list is closed, and it is worth seeing before narrowing to the usual two: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.124 — Commercial companies

“(1) Ticaret şirketleri; kollektif, komandit, anonim, limited ve kooperatif şirketlerden ibarettir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.124)

Unofficial translation: “Commercial companies consist of collective, commandite, joint-stock, limited and cooperative companies.”

The word the Code uses is ibarettir, “consist of”, and the list is therefore exhaustive. This answers a question that comes up early for a foreigner comparing structures: a sole proprietorship, the şahıs işletmesi run by a trader in their own name, is not on this list and is not a commercial company. It has no legal personality separate from the person behind it, so there is no capital to subscribe, no shares to transfer and no corporate shield; the trader is the merchant, and the business obligations are their own. It still carries registration duties, because the obligation to register on opening an enterprise in Article 40 is addressed to every merchant, not only to companies. Where the goal is a structure that can take a foreign shareholder, be sold in whole or in part, or hold a work permit quota, the capital companies below are the relevant comparison.

The Code then splits that list on the axis that decides liability: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.124 — Person companies and capital companies

“(2) Bu Kanunda, kollektif ile komandit şirket şahıs; anonim, limited ve sermayesi paylara bölünmüş komandit şirket sermaye şirketi sayılır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.124)

Unofficial translation: “In this Law, collective and commandite companies are deemed person companies; joint-stock, limited and commandite companies with capital divided into shares are deemed capital companies.”

There is one further difference between the two capital companies that is easy to miss at formation and expensive to discover later, because it sits in tax collection law rather than in the Commercial Code: a shareholder of a limited company can be pursued personally for the company’s unpaid public debt in proportion to their shareholding, while a shareholder of a joint-stock company cannot. That provision is set out below under what reaches you personally.

Foreign founders almost always land in the capital company group, being the joint-stock (anonim) or the limited company, and the reason is in that classification rather than in any tax rule. In a capital company the shareholder’s exposure is the capital undertaken, which the Code states expressly for the limited company: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.573 — Concept of the limited company

“(1) Limited şirket, bir veya daha çok gerçek veya tüzel kişi tarafından bir ticaret unvanı altında kurulur; esas sermayesi belirli olup, bu sermaye esas sermaye paylarının toplamından oluşur. (2) Ortaklar, şirket borçlarından sorumlu olmayıp, sadece taahhüt ettikleri esas sermaye paylarını ödemekle ve şirket sözleşmesinde öngörülen ek ödeme ve yan edim yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmekle yükümlüdürler.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.573)

Unofficial translation: “(1) A limited company is formed by one or more real or legal persons under a trade name; its share capital is determined, and that capital consists of the sum of the shares in the share capital. (2) The shareholders are not liable for the debts of the company and are obliged only to pay the shares in the share capital they have undertaken and to perform the additional payment and ancillary performance obligations provided in the articles of association.”

Two words in the first paragraph settle a question that costs foreign founders time: bir veya daha çok, one or more. A single foreign person, natural or legal, can hold the whole of a limited company. The joint-stock company is the same on this point: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.338 — Minimum number of founders

“(1) Anonim şirketin kurulabilmesi için pay sahibi olan bir veya daha fazla kurucunun varlığı şarttır. 330 uncu madde hükmü saklıdır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.338)

Unofficial translation: “(1) For a joint-stock company to be formed, the existence of one or more founders who are shareholders is required. The provision of Article 330 is reserved.”

There is a disclosure consequence that single-shareholder structures should know about in advance, because it is rarely mentioned in formation guides: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.338 — Registration of the single shareholder

“Ayrıca, hem şirketin tek pay sahipli olarak kurulması hem de payların tek kişide toplanması hâlinde tek pay sahibinin adı, yerleşim yeri ve vatandaşlığı da tescil ve ilan edilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.338)

Unofficial translation: “In addition, both where the company is formed with a single shareholder and where the shares are gathered in a single person, the name, place of residence and nationality of the single shareholder are also registered and announced.”

So a sole foreign shareholder’s name, residence and nationality are registered and announced, not merely recorded internally. Where that matters commercially, it is a reason to plan the shareholding structure before filing rather than after.

Between the two capital companies, the decision follows four things: the minimum capital, whether capital must be paid before registration, how shares will later be transferred, and the exit plan. The next three sections take them in that order.

Minimum Capital for a Company in Turkey

This is the point where outdated guidance does the most damage. The Code sets a floor: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.332 — Minimum capital of a joint-stock company

“(1) Tamamı esas sözleşmede taahhüt edilmiş bulunan sermayeyi ifade eden esas sermaye ellibin Türk Lirasından ve sermayenin artırılmasında yönetim kuruluna tanınmış yetki tavanını gösteren kayıtlı sermaye sistemini kabul etmiş bulunan halka açık olmayan anonim şirketlerde başlangıç sermayesi yüzbin Türk Lirasından aşağı olamaz. Bu en az sermaye tutarı Cumhurbaşkanınca artırılabilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.332)

Unofficial translation: “The share capital, representing the capital fully undertaken in the articles of association, may not be less than fifty thousand Turkish Liras, and in non-public joint-stock companies that have adopted the registered capital system showing the ceiling of authority granted to the board of directors in capital increases, the initial capital may not be less than one hundred thousand Turkish Liras. This minimum capital amount may be increased by the President.”

6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.580 — Minimum capital of a limited company

“(1) Limited şirketin esas sermayesi en az onbin Türk Lirasıdır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.580)

Unofficial translation: “The share capital of a limited company is at least ten thousand Turkish Liras.”

Those two figures are not the operative amounts. The last sentence of Article 332 is the reason: the President may raise them, and has done so:

“(1) 13/1/2011 tarihli ve 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanununun 332 nci maddesinin birinci fıkrasında anonim şirketler için ellibin Türk Lirası olarak öngörülen en az esas sermaye tutarı ikiyüzellibin Türk Lirasına, kayıtlı sermaye sistemini kabul etmiş bulunan halka açık olmayan anonim şirketlerde yüzbin Türk Lirası olarak öngörülen en az başlangıç sermayesi tutarı beşyüzbin Türk Lirasına yükseltilmiştir.”

(Anonim ve Limited Şirketler İçin En Az Sermaye Tutarının Artırılmasına Dair Cumhurbaşkanı Kararı m.1)

Unofficial translation: “The minimum share capital amount provided as fifty thousand Turkish Liras for joint-stock companies in the first paragraph of Article 332 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 of 13/1/2011 has been raised to two hundred and fifty thousand Turkish Liras, and the minimum initial capital amount provided as one hundred thousand Turkish Liras for non-public joint-stock companies that have adopted the registered capital system has been raised to five hundred thousand Turkish Liras.”

“(2) Aynı Kanunun 580 inci maddesinin birinci fıkrasında limited şirketler için onbin Türk Lirası olarak öngörülen en az esas sermaye tutarı ellibin Türk Lirasına yükseltilmiştir.”

(Anonim ve Limited Şirketler İçin En Az Sermaye Tutarının Artırılmasına Dair Cumhurbaşkanı Kararı m.1)

Unofficial translation: “The minimum share capital amount provided as ten thousand Turkish Liras for limited companies in the first paragraph of Article 580 of the same Law has been raised to fifty thousand Turkish Liras.”

The decree’s own commencement provision fixes when the raised figures began to apply:

“(1) Bu Karar 1/1/2024 tarihinde yürürlüğe girer.”

(Anonim ve Limited Şirketler İçin En Az Sermaye Tutarının Artırılmasına Dair Cumhurbaşkanı Kararı m.2)

Unofficial translation: “This Decree enters into force on 1/1/2024.”

So the practical picture is a statutory floor plus a decree sitting on top of it. In force since 1 January 2024, the amounts are TRY 250,000 for a joint-stock company, TRY 500,000 initial capital for a non-public joint-stock company inside the registered capital system, and TRY 50,000 for a limited company. Any guide quoting only the Code’s figures is quoting a number that no longer governs a new incorporation, and because the power to raise sits with the President, the same will be true of this page if the decree is replaced. Verify the amount in force on the day of incorporation.

One clarification worth making early, because it recurs in cost questions: the minimum capital is not a fee. It is subscribed by the shareholders and stays in the company as its own funds. What it constrains is how much has to be committed and, for one of the two company types, when.

How Much Capital Must Be Paid Before Registration?

For a joint-stock company the Code fixes both the fraction and the deadline: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.344 — Cash capital

“(1) Nakden taahhüt edilen payların itibarî değerlerinin en az yüzde yirmibeşi tescilden önce, gerisi de şirketin tescilini izleyen yirmidört ay içinde ödenir. Payların çıkarma primlerinin tamamı tescilden önce ödenir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.344)

Unofficial translation: “(1) At least twenty-five per cent of the nominal values of the shares undertaken in cash is paid before registration, and the remainder within twenty-four months following the registration of the company. The whole of the issue premiums of the shares is paid before registration.”

A quarter before registration, the rest within twenty-four months. On TRY 250,000 of subscribed capital that is TRY 62,500 that has to be in the account before the company exists, with the balance falling due over the following two years.

For a limited company the answer is different, and most guides blur it. A sentence added to Article 585 in 2018 disapplies the pre-registration quarter: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.585 — The quarter does not apply to limited companies

“Ancak nakden taahhüt edilen payların itibari değerlerinin en az yüzde yirmibeşinin tescilden önce ödenmesi şartı limited şirketler bakımından uygulanmaz.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.585)

Unofficial translation: “However, the condition that at least twenty-five per cent of the nominal values of the shares undertaken in cash be paid before registration does not apply in respect of limited companies.”

The obligation to pay the capital is not removed, only the timing of the first slice is. Article 585 makes the undertaking itself unconditional at formation: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.585 — Moment of formation

“(1) Şirket, kurucuların, kanuna uygun olarak düzenlenmiş bulunan, sermayenin tamamını ödemeyi şartsız olarak taahhüt ettikleri, ticaret sicili müdürlüğünde yetkilendirilmiş personelin huzurunda imzaladığı şirket sözleşmesinde limited şirket kurma iradelerini açıklamalarıyla kurulur.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.585)

Unofficial translation: “(1) The company is formed by the founders declaring, in the articles of association drawn up in accordance with the law and signed before authorised personnel at the trade registry directorate, their intention to form a limited company, in which they unconditionally undertake to pay the whole of the capital.”

For a founder comparing the two types on cash flow, this is the sharpest practical difference between them. It is also the point at which a guide can be tested for currency: a page that states a flat twenty-five per cent rule for both company types has not caught up with the 2018 amendment.

Opening the Company Bank Account

The cash capital does not go into an ordinary account, and the Code says where it goes and who may take it out: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.345 — Place of payment

“(1) Nakdî ödemeler, 19/10/2005 tarihli ve 5411 sayılı Bankacılık Kanununa bağlı bir bankada, kurulmakta olan şirket adına açılacak özel bir hesaba, sadece şirketin kullanabileceği şekilde yatırılır. Taahhüt edilen payların, kanunda veya esas sözleşmede öngörülmüş bulunan ve kanunda yazılı olandan daha yüksek olan tutarlarının ödendiği, ticaret siciline yöneltilecek bir banka mektubu ile ispatlanır. Banka, bu tutarı, şirketin tüzel kişilik kazandığını bildiren bir sicil müdürlüğü yazısının sunulması üzerine, sadece şirkete öder.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.345)

Unofficial translation: “(1) Cash payments are deposited into a special account opened in the name of the company being formed, at a bank subject to the Banking Law No. 5411 of 19/10/2005, in such a way that only the company may use it. Payment of the amounts of the shares undertaken, being those provided in the law or in the articles of association and higher than those written in the law, is proved by a bank letter addressed to the trade registry. The bank pays this amount only to the company, upon submission of a letter from the registry directorate stating that the company has acquired legal personality.”

Three things follow from that paragraph. The account is opened in the name of the company being formed, which is to say before the company legally exists. The bank letter is the evidence the registry works from, so the deposit is a registration document and not merely a banking step. And the bank releases the money only to the company, and only against a registry letter confirming legal personality, so a founder cannot treat the deposited capital as working funds during the formation period.

The Code also provides the way out if the formation stalls: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.345 — Return of the amounts

“(2) Şirket, 335 inci maddenin birinci fıkrasında öngörülen noter onayı veya şirket sözleşmesinin ticaret sicili müdürü yahut yardımcısı huzurunda imzalanma tarihinden itibaren, üç ay içinde tüzel kişilik kazanamadığı takdirde, bu hususu doğrulayan bir sicil müdürlüğü yazısının sunulması üzerine, bedeller banka tarafından sahiplerine geri verilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.345)

Unofficial translation: “(2) If the company fails to acquire legal personality within three months from the date of the notarial approval provided in the first paragraph of Article 335 or of the signing of the articles of association before the trade registry director or deputy director, the amounts are returned to their owners by the bank upon submission of a letter from the registry directorate confirming this.”

Three months from signature is therefore the outer limit of the blocked period. If registration has not happened by then, the depositors get their money back against a registry letter. For a foreign founder whose documents are travelling between an apostille authority, a sworn translator and a notary, that three-month clock is the one to plan the document timetable against.

The 31 December 2026 Deadline for Existing Companies

The 2024 raise was not made prospective only. A transitional article, added to the Code by Law No. 7511 of 23 May 2024, puts existing under-capitalised companies on a clock:

6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu geçici m.15 — Obligation to raise capital

“(1) Sermayeleri en az sermaye tutarının altında olan anonim ve limited şirketler, sermayelerini 31/12/2026 tarihine kadar 332 nci ve 580 inci maddelerde öngörülen tutarlara yükseltirler, aksi halde infisah etmiş sayılırlar. Çıkarılmış sermayesi en az iki yüz elli bin Türk lirası olan kayıtlı sermaye sistemini kabul etmiş bulunan halka açık olmayan anonim şirketler ise başlangıç sermayeleri ile çıkarılmış sermayelerini anılan tarihe kadar beş yüz bin Türk lirasına yükseltmedikleri takdirde, bu sistemden çıkmış sayılırlar.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu geçici m.15)

Unofficial translation: “Joint-stock and limited companies whose capital is below the minimum capital amount shall raise their capital to the amounts provided in Articles 332 and 580 by 31/12/2026; otherwise they are deemed dissolved. Non-public joint-stock companies that have adopted the registered capital system and whose issued capital is at least two hundred and fifty thousand Turkish Liras shall be deemed to have left that system if they do not raise their initial and issued capital to five hundred thousand Turkish Liras by the said date.”

The sanction is infisah, meaning the company is deemed dissolved, not merely fined. Anyone who incorporated in Türkiye before the decree, or who is acquiring an existing company as a market-entry route, should check the registered capital against the current minimum rather than assume grandfathering. This is also the single most common gap in competing guides: a page can describe the 2024 amounts correctly and still say nothing about the deadline that applies to the company you are about to buy.

There is a second paragraph that matters to anyone buying into an under-capitalised company, because it removes the usual obstacles to fixing the problem:

6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu geçici m.15 — Quorum for the capital increase

“(2) Sermayenin 332 nci ve 580 inci maddelerde öngörülen tutarlara yükseltilmesi için yapılacak genel kurul toplantılarında toplantı nisabı aranmaz, kararlar toplantıda mevcut oyların çoğunluğu ile alınır ve bu kararlar aleyhine imtiyaz kullanılmaz.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu geçici m.15)

Unofficial translation: “(2) At general assembly meetings to be held in order to raise the capital to the amounts provided in Articles 332 and 580, no meeting quorum is required, resolutions are taken by the majority of the votes present at the meeting, and no privilege may be used against those resolutions.”

So a minority holding, or a privileged share that would otherwise block the resolution, cannot prevent the company from curing its capital before the deadline. For an incoming investor this converts what looks like a governance risk into a timing question.

The same transitional article puts the date itself in play: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu geçici m.15 — Power to extend

“(3) Ticaret Bakanlığı, birinci fıkrada yazılı süreyi birer yıl olarak en çok iki defa uzatabilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu geçici m.15)

Unofficial translation: “The Ministry of Trade may extend the period written in the first paragraph by one year at a time, at most twice.”

This page states the date as it stands in the transitional article. Because the Ministry may extend it, by one year at a time and at most twice, whether an extension has in fact been issued must be verified before relying on 31 December 2026 as the operative deadline. The same caution applies in the other direction to the capital figures, which were set by decree and can be changed by decree.

Documents and the Articles of Association

The Code is specific about the form of the founding document and offers two routes to it: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.339 — Form of the articles of association

“(1) Esas sözleşmenin yazılı şekilde yapılması ve bütün kurucuların imzalarının noterce onaylanması veya esas sözleşmenin ticaret sicili müdürü yahut yardımcısı huzurunda imzalanması şarttır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.339)

Unofficial translation: “(1) It is mandatory that the articles of association be made in written form and that the signatures of all founders be approved by a notary, or that the articles of association be signed before the trade registry director or deputy director.”

Note the or. Notarial approval is one route; signature before the trade registry director or deputy director is the other, and the Code puts them on the same footing. Guides that present notarisation as the only possibility are describing a common practice rather than the rule.

Article 339 also lists what the articles must contain, including the trade name and the place of the registered office, the business object described in defined essentials, the capital and the nominal value of each share with the manner and conditions of payment, transfer restrictions and privileges attaching to particular shares, non-cash capital contributions and their values, the number of board members and those authorised to sign for the company, how general assemblies are convened, and the accounting period. For a foreign investor, the paragraphs on transfer restrictions and on signature authority are the ones worth deciding deliberately rather than adopting from a template, because both are difficult to change later and both shape what a future investor or buyer can do.

Where a founder is a foreign real or legal person, the file typically also carries identity documents, a tax identification number, a power of attorney where a representative signs, and sworn translations, with an apostille on documents issued abroad. The Commercial Code does not itself set that documentary list, so it should be confirmed against the trade registry directorate’s current requirements rather than treated as fixed law. What the Code does fix is the three-month window described above, which is the reason the documentary side is planned first and the signature booked second.

How to Register a Company in Turkey: Step by Step

Registration is the step that creates the company, and the Code puts a deadline on it: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.40 — Registration

“(1) Her tacir, ticari işletmenin açıldığı günden itibaren onbeş gün içinde, ticari işletmesini ve seçtiği ticaret unvanını, işletme merkezinin bulunduğu yer ticaret siciline tescil ve ilan ettirir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.40)

Unofficial translation: “(1) Every trader shall, within fifteen days from the day the commercial enterprise is opened, have its commercial enterprise and the trade name it has chosen registered and announced at the trade registry of the place where the centre of the enterprise is located.”

In outline, and with each stage anchored to the provisions quoted above, formation runs as follows:

1. Tax identification number for each foreign shareholder, obtained before the file is opened.
2. Articles of association, in writing, signed with notarised signatures or before the trade registry director (Article 339). The procedures are initiated through MERSİS (MERSIS), the central registry record system.
3. Competition Authority share paid over the capital of the company being formed (Article 39 of Law No. 4054, below).
4. Cash capital deposited into the blocked account opened in the name of the company being formed (Article 345), with at least a quarter paid in for a joint-stock company (Article 344) and no pre-registration quarter for a limited company (Article 585).
5. Registration and announcement at the trade registry directorate of the place of the registered office, within the fifteen-day period of Article 40.
6. Legal personality is acquired on registration (Articles 355 and 588), and the bank then releases the capital to the company against the registry letter.
7. Statutory books certified and the tax office procedures completed; the social security position follows from the registry filing, as set out below.

The order matters more than the speed. Steps two to four are all dated from the signature of the articles, and the three-month return rule in Article 345 measures from that same date.

Trade Name Rules for a Turkish Company

The trade name is chosen at the articles stage and registered with the company, and it carries obligations of its own: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.39 — Use of the trade name

“(1) Her tacir, ticari işletmesine ilişkin işlemleri, ticaret unvanıyla yapmak ve işletmesiyle ilgili senetlerle diğer belgeleri bu unvan altında imzalamak zorundadır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.39)

Unofficial translation: “(1) Every trader is obliged to carry out the transactions relating to its commercial enterprise under its trade name and to sign the bills and other documents relating to its enterprise under that name.”

6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.39 — Display of the trade name

“Tescil edilen ticaret unvanı, ticari işletmenin görülebilecek bir yerine okunaklı bir şekilde yazılır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.39)

Unofficial translation: “The registered trade name is written legibly in a visible place of the commercial enterprise.”

Article 39 goes further than a signage rule. Commercial letters and the documents underlying entries in the commercial books must show the trader’s registry number, trade name, the centre of the enterprise and, where the trader is subject to the website obligation, the registered website address. For companies the same information is published on the website, together with the names of the board members in a joint-stock company or the managers in a limited company and the capital undertaken and paid. A foreign group applying its own global letterhead template to a Turkish subsidiary usually has to add fields rather than translate them.

How Much Does Company Formation in Turkey Cost?

Only one element of the cost is fixed by statute, and it is proportional to the capital rather than flat. It appears in the provision listing the Competition Authority’s revenues: 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.39 — Revenues of the Authority

“Yeni kurulacak olan anonim ve limited şirket statüsündeki tüm ortaklıkların sermayelerinin ve sermaye artırımı halinde artan kısmın on binde dördü nispetinde yapılacak ödemeler,”

(4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.39)

Unofficial translation: “payments to be made at a rate of four ten-thousandths of the capital of all partnerships in the status of joint-stock and limited companies to be newly formed, and of the increased portion in the case of a capital increase,”

Four ten-thousandths is 0.04 per cent, and it is charged on the capital of the company being formed and again on the increased portion of any later capital increase. On the current joint-stock minimum of TRY 250,000 that is TRY 100; on the limited minimum of TRY 50,000 it is TRY 20. It is a small number, but it is the only component of the formation cost that can be read off a statute rather than a tariff.

Everything else varies. Notary charges, trade registry and gazette charges, sworn translation and apostille all follow tariffs that are reset periodically, and the cost of an apostille depends on the issuing country rather than on Turkish law. That is why a single all-in figure quoted in a formation guide is an estimate made on a particular date, not a legal amount, and why it should be checked against the tariffs in force rather than carried forward from a page published in an earlier year.

Two further points belong in a cost answer even though neither is a fee. The capital is not an expense, since it stays in the company as its own funds. And for a joint-stock company the capital timing is itself a cost question, because Article 344 requires a quarter of it to be locked in a blocked account before the company exists.

When Does the Company Come Into Existence?

Not on signature of the articles, and not on notarisation: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.355 — Acquisition of legal personality

“(1) Şirket ticaret siciline tescil ile tüzel kişilik kazanır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.355)

Unofficial translation: “The company acquires legal personality upon registration in the trade registry.”

Article 355 sits in the joint-stock company chapter. The limited company has its own provision saying the same thing, which is worth quoting because it is the one that applies to the type most foreign founders actually choose: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.588 — Legal personality of the limited company

“(1) Şirket, ticaret siciline tescil ile tüzel kişilik kazanır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.588)

Unofficial translation: “(1) The company acquires legal personality upon registration in the trade registry.”

Until registration there is no legal person to contract, lease premises or employ anyone, and the Code says plainly who carries the commitments made in the interval: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.588 — Acts before registration

“(3) Tescilden önce şirket adına işlem yapanlar, bu işlemler dolayısıyla şahsen ve müteselsilen sorumludur. (4) Bu gibi taahhütlerin, ileride kurulacak şirket adına yapıldıklarının açıkça bildirilmeleri ve şirketin ticaret siciline tescilini izleyen üç aylık süre içinde şirket tarafından kabul edilmeleri koşuluyla, bunlardan yalnız şirket sorumlu olur.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.588)

Unofficial translation: “(3) Those who act in the name of the company before registration are personally and jointly liable on account of those transactions. (4) Provided that such undertakings are expressly declared to have been made in the name of the company to be formed and are accepted by the company within the three-month period following its registration in the trade registry, only the company is liable for them.”

Paragraph 4 is the escape route, and it has two conditions that are easy to miss. The undertaking must have been expressly declared to be made in the name of the company to be formed, and the company must accept it within three months of registration. A lease or a supply contract signed by a founder in their own name during formation, without that declaration, stays with the founder. Where a foreign investor must commit to premises or equipment before the registry issues the number, the wording of the contract is what decides who is liable.

Registering with the Social Security Institution

Employer registration is the step most often described as a separate post-formation errand. For a company formation it is largely not: 5510 sayılı Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu m.11 — Notification through the trade registry

“Şirket kuruluşunun ticaret sicili memurluklarına bildirilmesi halinde yapılan bu bildirim Kuruma yapılmış sayılır ve ilgililerce ayrıca işyeri bildirgesi düzenlenmez. Ticaret sicili memurlukları, kendilerine yapılan bu bildirimi en geç on gün içinde Kuruma bildirmek zorundadır.”

(5510 sayılı Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu m.11)

Unofficial translation: “Where the formation of the company is notified to the trade registry offices, that notification is deemed to have been made to the Institution and no separate workplace notification is drawn up by the persons concerned. Trade registry offices are obliged to notify the Institution of the notification made to them within ten days at the latest.”

The registry filing therefore carries the workplace notification with it, and the registry has ten days to pass it on. What is not carried is the employer’s own deadline once people are actually hired: 5510 sayılı Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu m.11 — Deadline for the workplace notification

“İşveren, örneği Kurumca hazırlanacak işyeri bildirgesini en geç sigortalı çalıştırmaya başladığı tarihte, Kuruma vermekle yükümlüdür.”

(5510 sayılı Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu m.11)

Unofficial translation: “The employer is obliged to submit to the Institution the workplace notification, in the form to be prepared by the Institution, at the latest on the date it starts to employ an insured person.”

The deadline is the date employment starts, not a period running from it. Article 11 also attaches an administrative fine to failure, under Article 102, and states that failing to file does not remove the rights and obligations the Law creates. The practical reading for a new company is that the formation filing covers the registration, while the first hire is the date to work backwards from for everything else.

Foreign Shareholder or Manager: Two Separate Requirements

A structural rule in limited companies catches purely passive foreign ownership:

6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.623 — Management and representation of a limited company

“(1) Şirketin yönetimi ve temsili şirket sözleşmesi ile düzenlenir. Şirketin sözleşmesi ile yönetimi ve temsili, müdür sıfatını taşıyan bir veya birden fazla ortağa veya tüm ortaklara ya da üçüncü kişilere verilebilir. En azından bir ortağın, şirketi yönetim hakkının ve temsil yetkisinin bulunması gerekir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.623)

Unofficial translation: “The management and representation of the company are regulated by the articles of association. By the articles of association, the management and representation of the company may be given to one or more shareholders bearing the title of manager, or to all shareholders, or to third parties. At least one shareholder must have the right to manage and the authority to represent the company.”

Managers may be third parties, but the last sentence sets a floor: at least one shareholder must hold both the management right and the representation authority. On the face of the provision, a structure in which no shareholder holds both, all managers being third parties, does not meet that requirement. For a foreign group that intends to run the Turkish company entirely through appointed professionals, this is a drafting constraint to solve at the articles stage.

Holding shares is one question; working is another: 6735 sayılı Uluslararası İşgücü Kanunu m.6 — Prohibition on working without a permit

“(2) Bu Kanun kapsamında yer alan yabancıların çalışma izni olmaksızın Türkiye’de çalışmaları veya çalıştırılmaları yasaktır.”

(6735 sayılı Uluslararası İşgücü Kanunu m.6)

Unofficial translation: “It is prohibited for foreigners within the scope of this Law to work or to be employed in Türkiye without a work permit.”

Being a shareholder does not by itself authorise work. Where a foreign shareholder will also act as manager, the work-permit question arises separately from the company formation. Permit durations, the tiered extension system and the employer’s obligations are covered in work permits for foreign employees. A shareholder who does not take the manager title may instead fall within the work permit exemption, in which case the stay still rests on a residence permit; the types and their conditions are set out in residence permit types in Türkiye. An overview of how the residence and work permit questions fit together is on our residence and work permits page.

Can You Transfer Profits Out of Türkiye?

For an inbound investor this is usually the second question after the capital question, and Law No. 4875 answers it directly: 4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3 — Transfers

“Yabancı yatırımcıların Türkiye’deki faaliyet ve işlemlerinden doğan net kâr, temettü, satış, tasfiye ve tazminat bedelleri, lisans, yönetim ve benzeri anlaşmalar karşılığında ödenecek meblağlar ile dış kredi ana para ve faiz ödemeleri, bankalar veya özel finans kurumları aracılığıyla yurt dışına serbestçe transfer edilebilir.”

(4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3)

Unofficial translation: “Net profit, dividends, sale, liquidation and compensation proceeds arising from the activities and transactions of foreign investors in Türkiye, amounts to be paid in return for licence, management and similar agreements, and principal and interest payments of foreign loans, may be transferred abroad freely through banks or special finance institutions.”

The list is broader than dividends. It reaches sale and liquidation proceeds, which is to say the exit as well as the yield, and it reaches amounts payable under licence and management agreements and the principal and interest on foreign loans. The channel is specified as well: transfers go through banks or special finance institutions, not by private arrangement.

Two honest limits belong next to it. The provision guarantees the freedom to transfer, and it says nothing about the tax attaching to the distribution, which is assessed separately and is covered in taxation of foreign companies in Türkiye. And a transfer made through a bank remains subject to that bank’s own identification and compliance procedures, which are a banking question rather than a question under this Law.

Expropriation and Nationalisation

Law No. 4875 provides a further safeguard for the foreign investor, and it is short enough to read in full: 4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3 — Expropriation and nationalisation

“Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, yürürlükteki mevzuat gereğince; kamu yararı gerektirmedikçe ve karşılıkları ödenmedikçe kamulaştırılamaz veya devletleştirilemez.”

(4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3)

Unofficial translation: “Foreign direct investments may not be expropriated or nationalised under the legislation in force, unless the public interest so requires and unless their equivalents are paid.”

The guarantee is conditional rather than absolute, and reading it carefully is the point. Expropriation is not excluded; it is confined to cases where it is carried out under the legislation in force, where the public interest requires it, and where the equivalent is paid. Those three conditions are cumulative on the face of the text, which is what makes the provision a protection against arbitrary transfer rather than a promise that a taking can never occur.

Buying Shares Instead of Forming a Company

Market entry by buying an existing Turkish company is a real alternative to formation, and it is governed by a different set of formalities. In a limited company the first of them is a form requirement: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.595 — Form of the share transfer

“(1) Esas sermaye payının devri ve devir borcunu doğuran işlemler yazılı şekilde yapılır ve tarafların imzaları noterce onanır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.595)

Unofficial translation: “(1) The transfer of a share in the share capital and the transactions creating an obligation to transfer are made in written form and the signatures of the parties are approved by a notary.”

Note that the form requirement covers not only the transfer itself but the transactions creating an obligation to transfer. A share purchase agreement that commits a party to transfer later falls inside the rule, so a private signature exchanged between the parties does not do the job. The second requirement is a consent requirement: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.595 — Approval of the general assembly

“(2) Şirket sözleşmesinde aksi öngörülmemişse, esas sermaye payının devri için, ortaklar genel kurulunun onayı şarttır. Devir bu onayla geçerli olur.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.595)

Unofficial translation: “(2) Unless otherwise provided in the articles of association, the approval of the general assembly of shareholders is required for the transfer of a share in the share capital. The transfer becomes valid with that approval.”

The default is therefore that a buyer cannot complete without the existing shareholders, and the Code adds that where the articles are silent the general assembly may refuse without giving reasons. There is a timing rule that cuts the other way: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.595 — Deemed approval

“(7) Başvurudan itibaren üç ay içinde genel kurul reddetmediği takdirde onayı vermiş sayılır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.595)

Unofficial translation: “(7) If the general assembly does not refuse within three months from the application, it is deemed to have given its approval.”

Silence for three months counts as approval. A buyer of a limited company should therefore date the application to the general assembly deliberately, because that date starts the only clock that converts inaction into consent. Where the acquisition is itself the intended investment route to citizenship, the amounts and the determining authorities are a separate question, set out in Turkish citizenship by investment.

Branch of a Foreign Company

A foreign company may open a branch in Türkiye instead of forming a new company. A branch is not a separate legal person, and the Code registers it differently: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.40 — Branches of enterprises based abroad

“(4) Merkezleri Türkiye dışında bulunan ticari işletmelerin Türkiye’deki şubeleri, kendi ülkelerinin kanunlarının ticaret unvanına ilişkin hükümleri saklı kalmak şartıyla, yerli ticari işletmeler gibi tescil olunur. Bu şubeler için yerleşim yeri Türkiye’de bulunan tam yetkili bir ticari mümessil atanır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.40)

Unofficial translation: “(4) Branches in Türkiye of commercial enterprises whose centres are outside Türkiye are registered like domestic commercial enterprises, without prejudice to the provisions of the laws of their own countries on the trade name. For these branches a fully authorised commercial representative whose place of residence is in Türkiye is appointed.”

The second sentence is the structural difference that decides many branch-or-subsidiary questions. A branch of a foreign company must have a fully authorised commercial representative resident in Türkiye. A company formed in Türkiye has no equivalent residence requirement attached to its shareholders, and in a limited company the corresponding constraint is the different one in Article 623 discussed above. A group that has no one to place in Türkiye will usually find the subsidiary route simpler than the branch route for that reason alone.

Domestic branches are registered in their own right as well, and the Code keeps the central and branch registries linked: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.40 — Domestic branches

“(3) Merkezi Türkiye’de bulunan ticari işletmelerin şubeleri de bulundukları yerin ticaret siciline tescil ve ilan olunur. Ticaret unvanına ve imza örneklerine ilişkin birinci ve ikinci fıkra hükümleri bu işletmelere de uygulanır.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.40)

Unofficial translation: “(3) Branches of commercial enterprises whose centre is in Türkiye are also registered and announced at the trade registry of the place where they are located. The provisions of the first and second paragraphs on the trade name and signature specimens apply to these enterprises as well.”

A third structure sits below both, for a foreign company that wants presence without trading: 4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3 — Liaison offices

“Müsteşarlık, yabancı ülke kanunlarına göre kurulmuş şirketlere, Türkiye’de ticarî faaliyette bulunmamak kaydıyla irtibat bürosu açma izni vermeye yetkilidir.”

(4875 sayılı Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar Kanunu m.3)

Unofficial translation: “The Undersecretariat is authorised to grant permission to open a liaison office to companies formed under the laws of foreign countries, on condition that they do not engage in commercial activity in Türkiye.”

The condition is the defining one: no commercial activity. A liaison office that begins to trade is no longer within the permission it was granted. One honest limit about this provision is worth stating, because it is a dating clue rather than a defect. The text still refers to the Müsteşarlık, the Undersecretariat, which is an authority that no longer exists in that form; which body exercises the function today should be confirmed before an application is prepared. What the structure does and does not permit is unchanged. The permit conditions and the practical scope are set out in liaison office of a foreign company.

What a Foreign Director or Manager Is Personally Liable For

Forming the company is the easy part. The question a foreign founder should ask before signing the articles of association is narrower: once I sit on the board, or become the manager of the limited company, what can be taken from me rather than from the company?

Turkish law answers in two separate regimes that are often blurred together. The first is civil liability towards the company, its shareholders and its creditors. The second, dealt with in the next section, is liability for the company’s public debt. They have different conditions, different claimants and different defences.

The civil regime rests on a single provision: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.553 — Liability of founders, board members, managers and liquidators

“Kurucular, yönetim kurulu üyeleri, yöneticiler ve tasfiye memurları, kanundan ve esas sözleşmeden doğan yükümlülüklerini kusurlarıyla ihlal ettikleri takdirde, hem şirkete hem pay sahiplerine hem de şirket alacaklılarına karşı verdikleri zarardan sorumludurlar.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.553)

Unofficial translation: “Founders, members of the board of directors, managers and liquidators are liable for the damage they cause both to the company and to the shareholders and to the company’s creditors if they culpably breach their obligations arising from the law and from the articles of association.”

Three elements have to come together: a breach of a duty arising from the law or the articles, fault in that breach, and resulting damage. The requirement of fault is what separates Article 553 from strict liability.

Two points in the case law matter more to a foreign investor than the text itself.

The title is not what creates the exposure; the authority is. A person who is not a shareholder, and who works under a service contract, can still be sued under Article 553 if powers to run the company’s business were given to them. This is the trap for a foreign national who is described as a consultant or a country manager but who in practice signs and decides:

“ortak sıfatı bulunmayıp, şirketle arasında hizmet akdi çerçevesinde görev yapmakla birlikte şirketin iş ve işlemlerini yönetmek üzere kendisine çeşitli yetkiler verilen kişilerin görevlerini ifa ettikleri sırada şirkete, şirketin ortakları veya şirket alacaklılarına karşı zararlandırıcı eylemlerinden kaynaklanan davaların TTK’nın 553. maddesi uyarınca açılmış sorumluluk davası olması”

(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2021/5943, K. 2022/2413, T. 25.03.2022 — uyuşmazlığın giderilmesi)

Unofficial translation: “that actions arising from the harmful acts of persons who do not have the capacity of shareholder and who, while serving under a service contract with the company, have been given various powers in order to manage the company’s business and transactions, committed against the company, the company’s shareholders or the company’s creditors in the course of performing their duties, are liability actions brought under Article 553 of the Turkish Commercial Code”

The burden of proving fault is on the claimant, not on you. The original text of the Code contained a presumption of fault against directors. That presumption was removed in 2012, and the Court of Cassation states the consequence plainly:

“6335 sayılı Kanunun 28. maddesi ile 6102 sayılı TTK’nın 553. maddesinin birinci fıkrasında yapılan değişikliğe kadar kusurun varlığı karine olarak kabul edilmiş, ancak yapılan değişiklikle bu fıkradaki “kusurlarının bulunmadığını ispatlamadıkça” ibaresi kaldırılmıştır. Bu durumda artık kusurun varlığını ispat yükü zarara uğradığını iddia eden pay sahibine, şirkete veyahut şirket alacaklısına düşmektedir.”

(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2025/4222, K. 2026/1251, T. 04.03.2026 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “Until the amendment made to the first paragraph of Article 553 of Law No. 6102 by Article 28 of Law No. 6335, the existence of fault was accepted as a presumption; however, with the amendment made, the phrase ‘unless they prove that they are not at fault’ in that paragraph was removed. In this case, the burden of proving the existence of fault now falls on the shareholder, the company or the company’s creditor claiming to have suffered damage.”

A guide that still describes Turkish directors as presumed at fault has not caught up with the 2012 amendment. The Code also sets an outer limit on what supervision can be stretched to cover:

“Hiç kimse kontrolü dışında kalan, kanuna veya esas sözleşmeye aykırılıklar veya yolsuzluklar sebebiyle sorumlu tutulamaz; bu sorumlu olmama durumu gözetim ve özen yükümü gerekçe gösterilerek geçersiz kılınamaz.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.553)

Unofficial translation: “No one may be held liable for breaches of the law or of the articles of association, or for irregularities, that remain outside their control; this absence of liability may not be set aside by invoking the duty of supervision and care.”

For a non-resident board member who cannot realistically monitor day-to-day operations, this third paragraph is the provision worth reading closely before accepting the seat.

When the Company’s Tax Debt Reaches You Personally

This is the regime that surprises foreign investors most, because it does not depend on fault at all in one of its two branches, and because one of its provisions names foreign parties expressly.

Public receivables, which include tax and social security debt, are collected under a separate statute. Its provision on legal representatives is drafted to reach across borders: 6183 sayılı Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun mükerrer m.35 — Liability of legal representatives

“Tüzel kişilerle küçüklerin ve kısıtlıların, vakıflar ve cemaatler gibi tüzel kişiliği olmayan teşekküllerin mal varlığından tamamen veya kısmen tahsil edilemeyen veya tahsil edilemeyeceği anlaşılan amme alacakları, kanuni temsilcilerin ve tüzel kişiliği olmayan teşekkülü idare edenlerin şahsi mal varlıklarından bu Kanun hükümlerine göre tahsil edilir. Bu madde hükmü, yabancı şahıs veya kurumların Türkiye’deki mümessilleri hakkında da uygulanır.”

(6183 sayılı Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun mükerrer m.35)

Unofficial translation: “Public receivables that cannot be collected in whole or in part from the assets of legal persons, of minors and of persons under disability, and of entities without legal personality such as foundations and communities, or that are understood to be uncollectable, are collected from the personal assets of the legal representatives and of those administering the entity without legal personality, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. This provision also applies to the representatives in Türkiye of foreign persons or institutions.”

The second sentence is the one to note. The provision is not confined to Turkish nationals or to Turkish companies; it reaches the representative in Türkiye of a foreign person or institution. The same article adds that the company entering liquidation, or having been liquidated, does not remove the representative’s liability for earlier periods, and that a representative who pays may seek recourse against the principal debtor.

The second branch depends on company type, and this is a structuring decision, not an afterthought. Article 35 of the same statute reaches shareholders, but only of limited companies:

“Limited şirket ortakları, şirketten tamamen veya kısmen tahsil edilemeyen veya tahsil edilemeyeceği anlaşılan amme alacağından sermaye hisseleri oranında doğrudan doğruya sorumlu olurlar ve bu Kanun hükümleri gereğince takibe tabi tutulurlar. Ortağın şirketteki sermaye payını devretmesi halinde, payı devreden ve devralan şahıslar devir öncesine ait amme alacaklarının ödenmesinden birinci fıkra hükmüne göre müteselsilen sorumlu tutulur.”

(6183 sayılı Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun m.35)

Unofficial translation: “Shareholders of a limited company are directly liable, in proportion to their capital shares, for the public receivable that cannot be collected in whole or in part from the company or that is understood to be uncollectable, and they are subject to proceedings under the provisions of this Law. Where a shareholder transfers their capital share in the company, the transferor and the transferee are held jointly and severally liable for the payment of public receivables relating to the period before the transfer, in accordance with the first paragraph.”

The heading of that article is “Public debts of limited companies”, and its wording reaches only the limited company shareholder. A shareholder of a joint-stock company is not made liable for the company’s public debt by this provision; in a joint-stock company the route runs through legal-representative liability instead. Read together with the capital comparison earlier in this article, that is a second reason why the choice between the two types is not merely about minimum capital.

The Council of State describes what the shareholder’s liability actually is, and it is not a tax liability:

“Limited şirket ortağının sorumluluğu, ortağın şirkete karşı koymayı taahhüt ettiği esas sermaye paylarını ödemeye ilişkindir. Bu durumu sınırlı şahsi sorumluluk olarak tanımlamak mümkün olup, aynı zamanda kusursuz sorumluluk olarak da kabul edilmektedir.”

(Danıştay 4. Dairesi, E. 2019/5376, K. 2022/5525, T. 11.10.2022 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “The liability of a limited company shareholder relates to paying the principal capital shares that the shareholder has undertaken to contribute to the company. It is possible to define this situation as limited personal liability, and it is at the same time accepted as liability without fault.”

Liability without fault means the answer “I did nothing wrong” does not meet the claim. What can be contested is the procedure, and here the administration carries a real burden. The Council of State’s Tax Case Chambers Council sets out what must be completed before a payment order may be issued to a legal representative:

“Asıl borçlu şirketten tahsil edilemeyen veya edilemeyeceği anlaşılan amme alacaklarının tahsili amacıyla kanuni temsilci sıfatıyla ödeme emri düzenlenebilmesi için öncelikle amme alacağının asıl borçlu şirket adına usulüne uygun olarak tahakkuk ettirilmesi ancak alacağın 6183 sayılı Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun’un 37. maddesindeki kurallar uyarınca belirlenen vadesi içinde ödenmemesi gerekmektedir. Ayrıca asıl borçlu şirketin anılan Kanun’un 54. maddesinde öngörülen yöntemlere göre usulüne uygun bir biçimde takip edilmesi, bu kapsamda özellikle teminatsız alacaklarda asıl borçlu şirket adına düzenlenen ödeme emrinin usulüne uygun bir şekilde tebliğ edilmesi hukuken zorunludur. Öte yandan asıl borçlu şirketle ilgili mal varlığı araştırması sonucunda amme alacağının sözü edilen Kanun’un 3. maddesinde tanımlandığı biçimde tahsil edilemediğinin veya tahsil edilemeyeceğinin anlaşıldığının idarece ortaya konulması da gerekir.”

(Danıştay Vergi Dava Daireleri Kurulu, E. 2021/23, K. 2022/1133, T. 05.10.2022 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “In order for a payment order to be issued in the capacity of legal representative for the purpose of collecting public receivables that cannot be collected from the principal debtor company or that are understood to be uncollectable, the public receivable must first be duly assessed in the name of the principal debtor company, and the receivable must not have been paid within the due date determined under the rules in Article 37 of Law No. 6183. Furthermore, it is legally required that the principal debtor company be duly pursued in accordance with the methods provided for in Article 54 of the said Law, and in this context, particularly for unsecured receivables, that the payment order issued in the name of the principal debtor company be duly served. On the other hand, it is also necessary that the administration establish that, as a result of the asset investigation concerning the principal debtor company, the public receivable could not be collected or is understood to be uncollectable, as defined in Article 3 of the said Law.”

Four checkpoints follow from that paragraph, and each of them is a question a representative who receives a payment order can put to the administration: was the receivable duly assessed against the company, did it fall due unpaid, was the company itself pursued and served in due form, and did the administration establish through an asset investigation that collection failed. The phrase “idarece ortaya konulması”, that the administration must establish it, places that burden on the tax office rather than on the representative.

When the Capital Is Lost: What the Board Must Do

A foreign-owned company that spends its first years investing rather than earning can reach a balance-sheet threshold that triggers duties, and missing those duties is itself a breach of the obligations Article 553 measures. The Code sets two thresholds and then a third, separate situation: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.376 — Loss of capital and insolvency

“(1) Son yıllık bilançodan, sermaye ile kanuni yedek akçeler toplamının yarısının zarar sebebiyle karşılıksız kaldığı anlaşılırsa, yönetim kurulu, genel kurulu hemen toplantıya çağırır ve bu genel kurula uygun gördüğü iyileştirici önlemleri sunar.”

“(2) Son yıllık bilançoya göre, sermaye ile kanuni yedek akçeler toplamının üçte ikisinin zarar sebebiyle karşılıksız kaldığı anlaşıldığı takdirde, derhâl toplantıya çağrılan genel kurul, sermayenin üçte biri ile yetinme veya sermayenin tamamlanmasına karar vermediği takdirde şirket kendiliğinden sona erer.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.376)

Unofficial translation: “(1) If it is understood from the last annual balance sheet that half of the total of the capital and the legal reserves has been left uncovered because of loss, the board of directors immediately calls the general assembly to a meeting and submits to that general assembly the remedial measures it considers appropriate. (2) If it is understood from the last annual balance sheet that two thirds of the total of the capital and the legal reserves has been left uncovered because of loss, the company terminates of its own accord unless the general assembly, called immediately to a meeting, resolves either to be content with one third of the capital or to complete the capital.”

The second paragraph is the one to read twice. The consequence is not a fine and not a discretionary order; the company terminates of its own accord unless the general assembly takes one of the two decisions the provision names. For a shareholder who is abroad and who relies on a local manager to convene meetings, that is a governance question to settle in the articles of association at formation rather than after a bad year.

The third paragraph deals with a different condition, insolvency in the balance-sheet sense, and requires the board to draw up an interim balance sheet on both a going-concern and a likely-sale basis, and to notify the commercial court and request bankruptcy if assets do not cover creditors’ claims. The provision also names the way out, which is a written subordination by creditors covering the deficit, verified by court-appointed experts.

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers places that condition within bankruptcy law:

“2004 sayılı Kanun, sermaye şirketleri ile kooperatifler bakımından borca batıklık hâlini de ek bir iflâs sebebi olarak göstermiştir (2004 sayılı Kanun md.179/I). Borca batıklık 6102 sayılı Kanun’un 376 ncı maddesinden yola çıkılarak aktiflerin muhtemel satış fiyatları üzerinden değerlendirilmesi hâlinde elde edilecek tutarın, şirket alacaklılarının alacaklarını karşılamaya yetmediğinin anlaşılması olarak tanımlanabilir.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2023/160, K. 2024/190, T. 17.04.2024 — direnme kararının bozulmasına, oy çokluğu)

Unofficial translation: “Law No. 2004 has also shown the state of insolvency as an additional ground of bankruptcy for capital companies and cooperatives (Law No. 2004, Article 179/I). Insolvency may be defined, starting from Article 376 of Law No. 6102, as the understanding that the amount to be obtained when the assets are valued at their likely sale prices is insufficient to cover the claims of the company’s creditors.”

This connects back to the capital increase deadline discussed earlier in this article. A company raising its capital to the new statutory minimum before the end of 2026 is working on the numerator of the same fraction that Article 376 measures.

If You Are Squeezed Out: Dissolution for Just Cause

Minority foreign shareholders sometimes find that the company continues to exist and to trade, but that they no longer receive information, dividends or a meaningful vote. Turkish company law has a dedicated remedy for that situation, and it differs between the two capital company types in a way that favours the small holder in a limited company.

For the joint-stock company: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.531 — Dissolution for just cause

“(1) Haklı sebeplerin varlığında, sermayenin en az onda birini ve halka açık şirketlerde yirmide birini temsil eden payların sahipleri, şirketin merkezinin bulunduğu yerdeki asliye ticaret mahkemesinden şirketin feshine karar verilmesini isteyebilirler. Mahkeme, fesih yerine, davacı pay sahiplerine, paylarının karar tarihine en yakın tarihteki gerçek değerlerinin ödenip davacı pay sahiplerinin şirketten çıkarılmalarına veya duruma uygun düşen ve kabul edilebilir diğer bir çözüme karar verebilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.531)

Unofficial translation: “(1) Where just causes exist, the holders of shares representing at least one tenth of the capital, and one twentieth in publicly held companies, may request the commercial court of first instance at the place where the company’s head office is located to order the dissolution of the company. Instead of dissolution, the court may order that the real values of the claimant shareholders’ shares at the date closest to the date of the decision be paid to them and that the claimant shareholders be removed from the company, or may order another solution that is appropriate to the situation and acceptable.”

For the limited company the threshold disappears: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636 — Dissolution of a limited company for just cause

“(3) Haklı sebeplerin varlığında, her ortak mahkemeden şirketin feshini isteyebilir. Mahkeme, istem yerine, davacı ortağa payının gerçek değerinin ödenmesine ve davacı ortağın şirketten çıkarılmasına veya duruma uygun düşen ve kabul edilebilir diğer bir çözüme hükmedebilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636)

Unofficial translation: “(3) Where just causes exist, every shareholder may request the court to dissolve the company. Instead of granting the request, the court may rule that the real value of the claimant shareholder’s share be paid to them and that the claimant shareholder be removed from the company, or may rule on another solution that is appropriate to the situation and acceptable.”

A shareholder holding one per cent of a limited company can bring this action; the same holder in a joint-stock company cannot, unless they reach one tenth of the capital. For a foreign investor taking a small stake alongside a local majority, that difference is worth weighing at formation.

Just cause is not defined in the statute. The examples come from the Code’s own preparatory reasoning, and the Court of Cassation reproduces them:

“6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun (6102 sayılı Kanun) 531 inci maddesi gerekçesinde, İsviçre öğretisine atıfla; genel kurulun birçok kez kanuna aykırı bir şekilde toplantıya çağrılmış olması, azlık hakları ile bireysel hakların devamlı ihlali, özellikle bilgi alma ve inceleme haklarının engellenmesi, şirketin sürekli zarar etmesi, dağıtılan kâr payının düzenli olarak azalması haklı sebepler arasında sayılmıştır. Haklı sebeplere; genel kurulun uzun süredir toplantıya çağrılmamış olması, şirketin uzun süredir organsız kalması, şirket yönetiminin sistematik şekilde şirket menfaatleri ya da azınlık menfaatlerini ihlal edici tavır ve davranışlar içerisinde bulunması, haklı gerekçesi olmadığı halde uzun süredir kâr yapı dağıtılmaması veya göstermelik olarak düşük oranda dağıtılması, buna karşılık şirket yöneticilerine huzur hakkı adı altında örtülü kazanç aktarımı, hakim ortak yöneticilerin şirket imkanlarından kendileri yararlanıp azınlık pay sahiplerini yararlandırmamaları gibi sebeplerin eklenmesi gerekir.”

(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/7419, K. 2024/1381, T. 22.02.2024 — bozma, oy çokluğuyla)

Unofficial translation: “In the preparatory reasoning of Article 531 of Law No. 6102, with reference to Swiss doctrine, the following are counted among just causes: the general assembly having been convened unlawfully on many occasions, the continuous violation of minority rights and individual rights, in particular the obstruction of the rights to obtain information and to inspect, the company making continuous losses, and the distributed dividend decreasing regularly. To the just causes should be added such grounds as the general assembly not having been convened for a long time, the company remaining without organs for a long time, the company’s management systematically engaging in attitudes and conduct violating the company’s interests or the minority’s interests, no profit being distributed for a long time without justified reason or being distributed at a token low rate while disguised profit is transferred to the company’s managers under the name of attendance fees, and controlling shareholder managers benefiting themselves from the company’s resources without allowing the minority shareholders to benefit.”

That list describes the squeeze-out pattern precisely: no information, no dividends, and value moving to the majority through management payments. It is illustrative rather than a closed catalogue, and each case is assessed on its own facts.

Dissolution is a last resort, and the court is not bound by the request. This is the point at which expectations most often need adjusting, because the usual outcome is not that the company is wound up:

“Esasen, anonim şirketin haklı sebeple feshi daha çok, çoğunluğun şirketteki hakim pozisyonunu istismarına yönelik olarak azınlık haklarını korumak için getirilmiş bir hukuki çare ise de; şirketin yaşatılmasında ortakların dışında, üçüncü kişilerin (şirket çalışanları, şirketle iş yapan tacirler, kamu) de menfaati olduğundan aslolan şirketin yaşatılması olup, azınlık pay sahiplerinin hakları alternatif çözüm yöntemleri ile (gerçek pay bedelinin ödenip şirketten çıkartılması, şirketin bölünmesi vs.) korunabiliyorsa fesih yerine bu çözüm yolları denenmelidir.”

(Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/7419, K. 2024/1381, T. 22.02.2024 — bozma, oy çokluğuyla)

Unofficial translation: “In essence, although dissolution of a joint-stock company for just cause is a legal remedy introduced largely to protect minority rights against abuse by the majority of its dominant position in the company, since parties other than the shareholders (the company’s employees, merchants doing business with the company, the public) also have an interest in the company being kept alive, what is essential is keeping the company alive; and if the rights of the minority shareholders can be protected by alternative methods of resolution (payment of the real value of the shares and removal from the company, division of the company, and so on), these methods should be tried instead of dissolution.”

The practical reading is that a minority shareholder who files for dissolution is, in most cases, filing for an exit at the real value of their shares. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers confirms the breadth of the court’s discretion:

“Bu anlamda haklı nedenlere dair yapılacak değerlendirmede, 6102 sayılı TTK’nın 531. madde hükmünün sadece şirketin feshini öngörmediği, somut olayın koşulları çerçevesinde şirketin yaşatılmasının ekonomik ve rasyonel açıdan yararlı olduğuna ilişkin kanaatin mevcudiyeti hâlinde hâkime en uygun çözümü bulması anlamında geniş bir takdir hakkı tanıdığı da göz önüne alınmalıdır.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2025/121, K. 2025/364, T. 28.05.2025 — direnme kararı uygun bulunarak onandı)

Unofficial translation: “In this sense, in the assessment to be made as to just causes, it must also be taken into account that the provision of Article 531 of Law No. 6102 does not provide only for the dissolution of the company, and that it grants the judge a wide discretion, in the sense of finding the most appropriate solution, where there is a conviction that keeping the company alive is economically and rationally beneficial within the circumstances of the specific case.”

One procedural point decides standing in the limited company, and it is easy to lose by inadvertence:

“Limited şirketin fesih ve tasfiyesine ilişkin davada (fesih davasında) davacı sıfatı şirketin ortaklarına aittir. Bu kapsamda TTK’nın 636/3. maddesi kapsamında ancak pay defterine kayıtlı ortaklar limited şirketin haklı nedenle feshini mahkemeden isteyebilirler. Limited şirketin feshini isteyen davacının ortaklık sıfatının yargılama boyunca mevcut olması gerekir. Aksi durumda ortaklık sıfatını yitiren davacı, taraf sıfatını da yitirecektir.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2019/795, K. 2022/374, T. 24.03.2022 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “In an action concerning the dissolution and liquidation of a limited company (the dissolution action), the capacity of claimant belongs to the company’s shareholders. In this context, within the scope of Article 636/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code, only shareholders registered in the share ledger may request the court to dissolve the limited company for just cause. The claimant requesting the dissolution of the limited company must hold the capacity of shareholder throughout the proceedings. Otherwise, a claimant who loses the capacity of shareholder will also lose the capacity of party.”

Registration in the share ledger is therefore not a formality to be tidied up later. A foreign shareholder whose acquisition was never entered in the ledger may find that the remedy is closed to them, and a shareholder who is removed during the proceedings loses standing in the action they started. Where the shares came to a foreign holder through succession rather than purchase, the separate question of which law governs the estate is dealt with in inheritance with a foreign element in Türkiye.

Closing a Company in Turkey

The exit is part of the structuring decision, and the two capital companies have separate provisions. For the joint-stock company: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.529 — Grounds of dissolution

“(1) Anonim şirket; a) Sürenin sona ermesine rağmen işlere fiilen devam etmek suretiyle belirsiz süreli hâle gelmemişse, esas sözleşmede öngörülen sürenin sona ermesiyle, b) İşletme konusunun gerçekleşmesiyle veya gerçekleşmesinin imkânsız hâle gelmesiyle, c) Esas sözleşmede öngörülmüş herhangi bir sona erme sebebinin gerçekleşmesiyle, d) 421 inci maddenin üçüncü ve dördüncü fıkralarına uygun olarak alınan genel kurul kararıyla, e) İflasına karar verilmesiyle, f) Kanunlarda öngörülen diğer hâllerde, sona erer.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.529)

Unofficial translation: “(1) A joint-stock company is dissolved: a) upon expiry of the period provided in the articles of association, unless it has become of indefinite duration by actually continuing its business despite the expiry of the period, b) upon realisation of the business object or its becoming impossible to realise, c) upon realisation of any ground for dissolution provided in the articles of association, d) by a general assembly resolution taken in accordance with the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 421, e) upon a decision declaring its bankruptcy, f) in the other cases provided in the laws.”

For the limited company the list is shorter: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636 — Grounds of dissolution

“(1) Limited şirket aşağıdaki hâllerde sona erer: a) Şirket sözleşmesinde öngörülen sona erme sebeplerinden birinin gerçekleşmesiyle. b) Genel kurul kararı ile. c) İflasın açılması ile. d) Kanunda öngörülen diğer sona erme hâllerinde.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636)

Unofficial translation: “(1) A limited company is dissolved in the following cases: a) upon realisation of one of the grounds for dissolution provided in the articles of association. b) by a general assembly resolution. c) upon the opening of bankruptcy. d) in the other cases of dissolution provided in the law.”

A minority foreign shareholder in a limited company has one route that does not depend on persuading the majority: 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636 — Dissolution for just grounds

“(3) Haklı sebeplerin varlığında, her ortak mahkemeden şirketin feshini isteyebilir. Mahkeme, istem yerine, davacı ortağa payının gerçek değerinin ödenmesine ve davacı ortağın şirketten çıkarılmasına veya duruma uygun düşen ve kabul edilebilir diğer bir çözüme hükmedebilir.”

(6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu m.636)

Unofficial translation: “(3) Where there are just grounds, every shareholder may ask the court to dissolve the company. The court may, instead of the request, order the payment to the claimant shareholder of the real value of their share and the removal of the claimant shareholder from the company, or another appropriate and acceptable solution.”

The provision is usually read as a dissolution remedy, but the second sentence is the one that matters to an investor who cannot exit a deadlocked company. The court may order payment of the real value of the share and the removal of that shareholder instead of dissolving the company, which turns the action into a valued exit rather than a demolition. The transitional Article 15 route described above is a fourth way a company can end, since a company that does not raise its capital by the deadline is deemed dissolved by operation of the provision itself.

Common Mistakes

• Quoting the Code’s capital figures. Articles 332 and 580 state the floor; the amounts in force were raised by Presidential decree to TRY 250,000 (joint-stock) and TRY 50,000 (limited), and may be raised again.
• Applying the twenty-five per cent rule to a limited company. The pre-registration quarter in Article 344 is disapplied for limited companies by the sentence added to Article 585 in 2018.
• Treating the capital as a formation cost. The capital stays in the company; the only statutory charge is the four ten-thousandths payable under Article 39 of Law No. 4054.
• Assuming an existing company is grandfathered. Companies below the minimum must raise capital by 31 December 2026 or be deemed dissolved (transitional Article 15), and the Ministry’s power to extend that date must be checked rather than assumed.
• Treating the blocked account as working capital. The bank releases the deposit only to the company and only against a registry letter confirming legal personality (Article 345).
• Missing the three-month window. If registration has not happened within three months of signature, the deposited amounts are returned and the file starts again (Article 345).
• Signing for the company before it exists. Those who act in the name of the company before registration are personally and jointly liable unless the undertaking was expressly made in the company’s name and accepted within three months (Article 588).
• Structuring every foreign shareholder as passive. In a limited company at least one shareholder must hold the management right and representation authority (Article 623).
• Treating shareholding as permission to work. Working without a permit is prohibited; a shareholder acting as manager needs the permit question answered separately (Article 6 of Law No. 6735).
• Buying shares by private agreement. A limited company share transfer needs written form with notarised signatures and, as a rule, general assembly approval (Article 595).
• Confusing a branch with a company. A branch of a foreign enterprise must have a fully authorised commercial representative resident in Türkiye (Article 40), and a liaison office may not trade at all.
• Expecting harsher rules for foreigners. As a rule, equal treatment applies; the foreign investor is on the same footing as the domestic one (Article 3 of Law No. 4875).
• Skipping sector legislation. Investment is free as a general rule, but certain regulated sectors carry special restrictions or permits introduced by special law.

Summary

Company formation in Turkey is open to foreign investors on the same terms as domestic ones, because Law No. 4875 makes foreign direct investment free and subjects foreign investors to equal treatment. The company types and the formation procedure sit in the Turkish Commercial Code, and a wholly foreign-owned company with a single shareholder is possible in both capital company types.

Three numbers carry most of the practical weight. The minimum capital in force comes from a Presidential decree rather than from the Code, at TRY 250,000 for a joint-stock company and TRY 50,000 for a limited company. A quarter of the cash capital of a joint-stock company is paid before registration, while a limited company has no pre-registration quarter. And 31 December 2026 is the deadline by which an existing under-capitalised company must raise its capital or be deemed dissolved, subject to the Ministry’s power to extend.

The company comes into existence on registration and not before, the blocked capital is released only against the registry’s confirmation of legal personality, and the social security notification travels with the registry filing. Before committing capital, the company type, the sector legislation and the documentary timetable should be planned together, and the capital figures and deadline should be verified against the instruments in force on the day of incorporation.