Blog
VUK Communiqué No. 595: Digital Platforms Do Not Report the Same Data
Communiqué No. 595 gives hosting and social-network providers a separate data set. A platform's role determines which identity, listing, payment and bank data it reports.
In this article
Regulatory note: This article reflects the position as of 7 September 2026. It is based on Articles 149 and 253 and Additional Articles 257 and 355 of Turkey’s Tax Procedure Law, VUK General Communiqués Nos. 538 and 595, Articles 2/d and 11 of Law No. 6563, the provider definitions in Law No. 5651, and Council of State Third Chamber decision E.2023/3109 K.2024/2440. Communiqué No. 595 is new, so notices from the Revenue Administration and BTRANS must also be monitored.
60-second summary: Communiqué No. 595 entered into force on 5 September 2026. Eight provider types appear in the statutory authorization, but the current Article 4 of Communiqué No. 538 directly regulates three operational groups. The data set is broad for an intermediary service provider: identity and listing data are joined by payment amount, transaction date and bank-account information. Hosting and social-network providers report a narrower set. Preserve September 2026 data under two regimes: the former Article 4/1 for 1-4 September, then the amended Article 4/1 or new Article 4/2 according to provider status from 5 September onward. Unless GİB changes the deadline, the default due date is the end of October.
Eight providers in the authorization, three in the operational rule
Article 149 of the Tax Procedure Law permits continuous information requests from natural and legal persons about events relevant to taxation. Additional Article 257/1/(b)/(7) defines the digital settings and provider types more precisely. The provision, amended on 2 August 2024, lists eight groups: service providers, e-commerce service providers, intermediary service providers, e-commerce intermediary service providers, access providers, content providers, hosting providers and social-network providers.
That list is not a direct list of present reporting entities. It describes the field in which the Ministry of Treasury and Finance may determine scope, content, format, timing and method. The operational obligation is in Article 4 of General Communiqué No. 538. After the No. 595 amendment, intermediary service providers sit in Article 4/1; hosting and social-network providers that enable listings sit in Article 4/2.
The distinction matters. A company that meets the definition of a content provider or an e-commerce service provider is not, for that reason alone, a BTRANS reporter under the current Article 4. The next question is whether its real activity also falls within Article 4/1 or 4/2.
Law No. 6563, Article 2/d, defines an intermediary service provider as a person that provides an e-commerce environment for the economic and commercial activities of others. Under Law No. 5651, Article 2/m, a hosting provider supplies or operates systems that host services and content; Article 2/s defines a social-network provider as enabling users to create, view or share content for social interaction. One platform can approach more than one definition. Classification should follow the contracts, user journey, listing function and payment role—not the brand’s preferred label.
Which box does the business model approach?
The matrix below is a first screen, not a final legal classification. A positive indication should be tested against the contracts and the product flow.
| Business model | Dominant function | First view under Article 4 | Likely data set |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-vendor marketplace | Provides the environment and transaction flow for sales by others | Approaches intermediary-provider status | Article 4/1 — broad |
| Vehicle or property listing site | Publishes listings; payment may remain outside the platform | Intermediary/hosting distinction depends on function | Article 4/1 or 4/2 |
| Short-term rental platform | Listing plus, often, booking and payment | Article 4/1 becomes stronger where intermediation is real | Broad set more likely |
| Social network with selling features | User content and commercial listings | Article 4/2 may apply as a social-network provider | Article 4/2 — narrow |
| Pure hosting service | Hosts customer content on its systems | Whether it enables relevant commercial listings requires a separate review | No automatic answer |
| SaaS application marketplace | Allows ordering of third-party add-ons or services | Article 4/1 is relevant if the structure is genuinely intermediary | Contract and flow dependent |
| Game platform or digital game store | Hosts and distributes games, add-ons or in-game content | Status under Law No. 5651, Article 2/ü, does not decide the issue by itself; intermediation, hosting and commercial-listing functions require separate review | Article 4/1, Article 4/2 or outside scope depending on function |
| Freelance-work platform | Service listings, bids, contracting and sometimes collection | Approaches Article 4/1 if it intermediates service transactions | Broad set likely |
| Business selling only its own goods on its own site | Sale on its own account | That fact alone does not create intermediary/hosting/social-network status under Article 4 | Outside absent a platform function |
| Individual or business posting a listing | Uses the platform | Supplies information to the platform rather than filing BTRANS itself | Identity and listing information |
| Foreign platform | Provides a digital environment to users in Turkey | Place of establishment alone does not resolve the issue | Data insufficient—review activity and GİB approach |
The foreign-platform row deliberately does not say automatically in or out. Communiqué No. 595 does not create a separate residence test, local-representative rule or threshold for foreign platforms. A conclusion requires the Turkish activity, contracting entity, access to reportable data and enforceability to be examined together.
Broad and narrow reporting are working labels, not statutory terms
“Broad” and “narrow” do not appear in the Communiqué. They are editorial labels for remembering the two data sets.
| Information | Intermediary provider — Article 4/1 “broad” | Hosting/social-network provider — Article 4/2 “narrow” |
|---|---|---|
| Internet address where the service is provided | Yes | Yes |
| Name or legal name | Yes | Yes |
| TCKN, YKN, VKN and similar taxpayer-identification data | Yes | Yes |
| Listing information | Yes | Yes |
| Amount and date of each payment or sale | Yes | No |
| Bank account to which the collected amount is transferred | Yes | No |
| Article 4/4: owner information where the listed asset belongs to another person | Obtained from the listing party | Obtained from the listing party |
Payment data creates the clearest difference. An intermediary service provider under Article 4/1 does not report only the listing and user identity. It also includes the amount and date of every collection or sale and the relevant bank-account information. Article 4/1-(c), which governs those fields, was not amended by Communiqué No. 595. Those fields are not listed for hosting and social-network providers under Article 4/2. The owner-information row comes from Article 4/4, which addresses all three provider groups, rather than from Article 4/2’s three-item list.
This affects product architecture. The text of the Communiqué does not prescribe a separate “payment-provider transaction ID” field, but using that identifier is a sensible control for keeping Article 4/1 collection and sales data traceably linked to the listing. The current BTRANS data standard and mandatory fields must be checked separately. An Article 4/2 platform still needs a durable listing-to-user relationship even if there is no payment layer. A report screen added at the end of the month is not enough; the data’s origin and amendment history must be traceable inside the product.
Monthly reporting and the BTRANS calendar
Article 5 of Communiqué No. 538 states three rules. The Revenue Administration announces the format and standards through BTRANS; reporting is monthly; and a month’s information is due by 23:59 on the last day of the following month. Article 7 requires the BTRANS application to be completed before the first reporting date.
Communiqué No. 595 entered into force on 5 September 2026 and contains no separate transition rule. September 2026 data should therefore be preserved under two legal periods. Intermediary, hosting and social-network providers preserve the former Article 4/1 data set in force for 1-4 September. From 5 September onward, an intermediary service provider collects data under amended Article 4/1, while a hosting or social-network provider uses new Article 4/2. The effect of the Council of State decision on the hosting-provider claimant must be assessed separately. Unless GİB uses Article 7/3 to set a different period or deadline, the legal default due date for September is the end of October.
Data collection and BTRANS registration should proceed without waiting for a notice. A valid electronic filing, however, can be made only through the format and method announced by GİB in BTRANS. Confirm from the BTRANS notice whether data for 1-4 September and data from 5 September onward must be filed in one file or as separate periods. An unavailable format or closed system does not extend the deadline automatically; a period or deadline change requires an express GİB announcement, and the technical position should be recorded in writing.
Gökay GÜL’s note: Do not leave the first period to the last day. Freeze and label separately the former Article 4/1 data for 1-4 September and the amended Article 4/1 or new Article 4/2 data from 5 September onward. Unless GİB announces another deadline, treat the end of October as both the legal due date and the operational target; test the BTRANS file split as soon as it becomes available and record any technical obstacle in writing.
The listing party has a separate responsibility
The platform files the report, but the person posting the listing is not passive. Article 4/4 of Communiqué No. 538 requires that person to provide the information the platform must send to the Revenue Administration. If the movable asset, real estate, good or service is owned by another person, information about that owner must also be supplied to the intermediary, hosting or social-network provider. This rule addresses all three provider groups rather than only the Article 4/1 data set.
Providing that information does not make every listing party a taxpayer automatically. Tax status depends separately on continuity, organization, the nature of the income and any exemption conditions. A request for TCKN or VKN does not itself create a taxable event. Conversely, a platform’s failure to ask for the information does not make a continuous commercial activity tax-free.
If the user does not complete the required data, the problem is not only a user-experience issue. Article 4/5 separately requires the platform to report information concerning listing parties that did not provide the information required under Article 4/4. The BTRANS standard should be checked for the required representation of missing fields. The user agreement, privacy notice, form fields and listing rules therefore belong in the same compliance map.
Why the Council of State decision matters
In E.2023/3109 K.2024/2440, the Third Chamber of the Council of State annulled parts of Communiqué No. 538 as regards the hosting-provider claimant. The operative part expressly identifies Article 4/1-(c), Article 4/1-(ç), the Article 4/2 then in force, Article 6/3 and Article 6/5. Article 4/2 in that decision was the payment-intermediation paragraph under the pre-595 numbering; it was not a ruling on the current Article 4/2 added on 5 September 2026. The reasoning focuses on two points: a hosting provider may be unable to verify information supplied by another person, yet the rules exposed it to a special-irregularity penalty risk and required retention of third-party data.
The decision was issued by majority on 29 April 2024. Its wording is limited to “the claimant” in its capacity as a hosting provider. It should not be presented as an automatic general annulment for every hosting provider. Its proportionality analysis and treatment of data-accuracy responsibility are nevertheless material for similar business models.
Communiqué No. 595 removed hosting and social-network providers from the former Article 4/1 wording, created a separate Article 4/2 data set for them and repealed Article 6/3. The judgment’s statutory-basis analysis concerned the wording of VUK Additional Article 257/1/(b)/(7) before Law No. 7524. The express addition of hosting and social-network providers to that authorization on 2 August 2024 created a separate statutory basis for the current rule. The amendment’s timing and content appear aligned with the judgment’s risk areas, but no primary source expressly describes it as direct execution of the judgment.
Penalty and retention risk
For 2026, the base amounts in Additional Article 355 of the Tax Procedure Law are TRY 35,000, TRY 17,000 and TRY 8,700, depending on taxpayer class. A separate sentence addresses digital reports: each unreported, incomplete or misleading item concerning a purchase, sale, rental, listing or advertisement, and the associated obligations, can trigger the class-based penalty. The statutory cap is TRY 17,000,000 “for each report”; that sentence does not also establish a calendar-year aggregate cap.
The size of the cap is not the only risk. Because the rule is tied to reportable information, a monthly file containing hundreds of listings should not be budgeted on the assumption that one file always means one violation. Before submission, test mandatory-field completeness, identity-number validity, listing-to-transaction matching and duplicates separately.
Article 6/4 of Communiqué No. 538 says data sent outside the format and method specified by GİB will not be accepted and is treated as not reported. A technically uploaded file may therefore fail to constitute a legal report. Under Article 6/5, reportable information is retained electronically for the period prescribed under the Tax Procedure Law. For books and documents within VUK Article 253, that period is five years beginning with the calendar year after the relevant year. The Council of State decision, however, annulled Article 6/5 as regards the hosting-provider claimant, so its effect for a similarly situated provider must be assessed against that provider’s specific legal position.
A second clock applies to e-commerce records. Law No. 6563, Article 11, requires intermediary service providers and service providers to retain the information, documents, books and electronic records concerning transactions under that Law for ten years from the transaction date. If one record falls under both VUK/538 and Law No. 6563, the retention design should satisfy the longer period.
Keep the risk map under four headings:
- Misclassification: a platform treated as Article 4/2 while its real activity is Article 4/1 intermediation.
- Missing data: bank or transaction fields remain with the payment provider and never reach the BTRANS file.
- Wrong data: user-entered information conflicts with the platform record and no amendment history is retained.
- Invalid submission: the file is uploaded but does not meet the current BTRANS format.
Implementation plan
- Determine the legal role. Test the definitions in Law No. 6563, Article 2/d, and Law No. 5651, Articles 2/m and 2/s, against contracts, screens and payment flow.
- Separate Article 4/1 from Article 4/2. Document which intermediary, listing, hosting and social-interaction functions actually operate.
- Complete BTRANS registration. Prepare user permissions and signing steps before the first filing window.
- Build a data dictionary. Record the source system, owner, update time and validation rule for every field.
- Update the listing flow. Under Article 4/4, use the appropriate TCKN, YKN or VKN-type identifier for the person’s status and connect it to the listing and, where relevant, owner information.
- Create payment matching. If Article 4/1 applies, connect every payment or sale to the listing, user, date and bank account.
- Produce a monthly control file. Before 23:59 on the last day of the following month, report missing, duplicate and format-invalid records.
- Design a retention matrix. Determine the relevant Tax Procedure Law retention period for Article 6/5 by record type and platform status; show separately the five-year period for books and documents within VUK Article 253 and the ten-year period from the transaction date for e-commerce records under Law No. 6563.
- Split the September transition. Label and preserve former Article 4/1 data for 1-4 September separately from amended Article 4/1 or new Article 4/2 data from 5 September onward. Unless GİB changes the deadline, prepare for the end of October and confirm the file split against the BTRANS format.
Frequently asked questions
1. Did Communiqué No. 595 immediately impose reporting on all eight provider types?
No. Tax Procedure Law Additional Article 257/1/(b)/(7) authorizes the Ministry to regulate eight provider types, while the current operational rule in Communiqué No. 538, Article 4, addresses intermediary, hosting and social-network providers.
2. What is the main difference between the broad and narrow reports?
The intermediary-provider set includes payment or sales amount, transaction date and bank-account data in addition to identity and listing information. Hosting and social-network providers report the internet address, identity data and listing information under Article 4/2.
3. When is the first post-595 report due?
The Communiqué has no separate transition rule. Preserve September 2026 data in two periods: the former Article 4/1 for 1-4 September, then the amended Article 4/1 or new Article 4/2 according to the provider’s status from 5 September onward. Unless GİB sets a different period or deadline, the default due date is the end of October; confirm the file split and valid submission method against the format announced in BTRANS.
4. When should the BTRANS application be completed?
Before the first reporting date. Registration, user permissions and a test data file should be prepared together rather than left to the reporting week.
5. Which identity or taxpayer information must a listing party supply?
The platform obtains the information it must report from the listing party and uses the appropriate TCKN, YKN or VKN-type identifier for that person’s status. Article 4/4 also requires owner information to be supplied to the intermediary, hosting or social-network provider if the listed good or right belongs to someone else.
6. Is a listing-only platform outside the rule if it does not handle payment?
Not automatically. Not handling payment does not by itself remove the Article 4/2 identity and listing report for a hosting or social-network provider. The platform’s actual functions and legal status must be assessed together.
7. What are the 2026 penalties for missing or misleading reports?
The 2026 base amounts in Tax Procedure Law Additional Article 355 are TRY 35,000, TRY 17,000 and TRY 8,700 by taxpayer class. The statutory cap is TRY 17,000,000 for each report under Additional Article 257/1/(b)/(7); that sentence does not also create a calendar-year aggregate cap.
8. How long must reported data be retained?
Article 6/5 of Communiqué No. 538 links electronic retention of reportable data to the period prescribed in the Tax Procedure Law for the relevant record or document. For books and documents within VUK Article 253, that period is five years beginning with the calendar year after the relevant year; the platform’s VUK status must be assessed separately. The Council of State annulled Article 6/5 as regards the hosting-provider claimant. E-commerce records under Law No. 6563, Article 11, are retained for ten years from the transaction date.
Sources
- Tax Procedure Law No. 213 — Articles 149, 253, Additional Articles 257 and 355
- Tax Procedure Law General Communiqué No. 538 — Official Gazette, 31 May 2022
- Tax Procedure Law General Communiqué No. 595 — Official Gazette, 5 September 2026
- Tax Procedure Law General Communiqué No. 588 — 2026 thresholds and amounts
- Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce — Articles 2/d and 11
- Law No. 5651 — Articles 2/m, 2/s and 2/ü
- Council of State, Third Chamber, E.2023/3109 K.2024/2440 — 29 April 2024
Frequently asked.
Did Communiqué No. 595 immediately impose reporting on all eight provider types?
No. Tax Procedure Law Additional Article 257/1/(b)/(7) authorizes the Ministry to regulate eight provider types, while the current operational rule in Communiqué No. 538, Article 4, addresses intermediary, hosting and social-network providers.
What is the main difference between the broad and narrow reports?
The intermediary-provider set includes payment or sales amount, transaction date and bank-account data in addition to identity and listing information. Hosting and social-network providers report the internet address, identity data and listing information under Article 4/2.
When is the first post-595 report due?
The Communiqué has no separate transition rule. Preserve September 2026 data in two periods: the former Article 4/1 for 1-4 September, then the amended Article 4/1 or new Article 4/2 according to the provider's status from 5 September onward. Unless GİB sets a different period or deadline, the default due date is the end of October; confirm the file split and valid submission method against the format announced in BTRANS.
When should the BTRANS application be completed?
Before the first reporting date. Registration, user permissions and a test data file should be prepared together rather than left to the reporting week.
Which identity or taxpayer information must a listing party supply?
The platform obtains the information it must report from the listing party and uses the appropriate TCKN, YKN or VKN-type identifier for that person's status. Article 4/4 also requires owner information to be supplied to the intermediary, hosting or social-network provider if the listed good or right belongs to someone else.
Is a listing-only platform outside the rule if it does not handle payment?
Not automatically. Not handling payment does not by itself remove the Article 4/2 identity and listing report for a hosting or social-network provider. The platform's actual functions and legal status must be assessed together.
What are the 2026 penalties for missing or misleading reports?
The 2026 base amounts in Tax Procedure Law Additional Article 355 are TRY 35,000, TRY 17,000 and TRY 8,700 by taxpayer class. The statutory cap is TRY 17,000,000 for each report under Additional Article 257/1/(b)/(7); that sentence does not also create a calendar-year aggregate cap.
How long must reported data be retained?
Article 6/5 of Communiqué No. 538 links electronic retention of reportable data to the period prescribed in the Tax Procedure Law for the relevant record or document. For books and documents within VUK Article 253, that period is five years beginning with the calendar year after the relevant year; the platform's VUK status must be assessed separately. The Council of State annulled Article 6/5 as regards the hosting-provider claimant. E-commerce records under Law No. 6563, Article 11, are retained for ten years from the transaction date.
Map the incentive route
Let’s compare Technopark, service-export and company-structure options.
Share the revenue model, team structure and foreign-customer mix. We will map which regimes may apply and where the evidence risks sit.
Review the technology-company service scope →Do not send passwords, OTP codes, source code, contracts or confidential customer data in your first message.