ISSUES CONCERNING LIABILITY RISING FROM PUBLIC RECEIVABLES IN CASE OF SHARE TRANSFER

Year 2017, , 385 - 391, 30.06.2017

Mahmut Kabakci

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.424

Abstract

On
20/04/2016, the Law No. 6701 on Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey
entered into force. Although it seems like a law of Partners of corporations,
in principle, are not personally liable for debt of corporations provided that
they paid the capital they had undertaken. However, there were some exceptions
to this principle regarding public receivables, notably, tax and social
security contributions. One of these exceptions is article 35 of Law numbered
6183. According to this, partners of limited company are liable pro rata for
the public receivables that are uncollectible wholly or partially or seemingly
uncollectible and in case of share transfer, transferor and transferee are
jointly liable for the public receivables that are due before the date of
transfer. Similarly, article 89 of Law numbered 5510 states that in cases of
workplace is either taken over or transferred along with the assets and
liabilities, or joined or merged with another workplace, new employer is
jointly and severally liable for the debts of corporations consisting of
contributions, default penalty, default interest and others as well as former
employer. In both circumstances, agreements eliminating joint liability of
parties for public receivables are void for the creditor Institution,
provisions in such agreements determinate recourse. For this reason, there has
been significant legal disputes in practice in mergers by share transfer or
acquisitions regarding transferee has to bear the public debts that are due
before the date of transfer. In this study, recourse between transferee and
transferor as being jointly liable will be examined.

 

Keywords

Public receivable, joint liability, recourse, share transfer, social insurance contributions

References

• Ay, H., Baran, T. (2014), “Kamu Alacaklarının Korunma Yöntemleri ve Bir Değerlendirme”, Sosyoekonomi Dergisi, 2014/1, s.45-68.
• Bilgili, F, Demirkapı, E. (2013), Şirketler Hukuku, 9. Bası, Bursa.
• Biyan, Ö. (2012), “6102 Sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanununda Tek Ortaklı Şirket: Zorunlu Bazı Düzenlemelerin Vergi Hukukunda Yarattığı Eksiklik”, Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 2012/Temmuz-Ağustos, s.91-110.
• Budak, T.; Er, S. (2013), “Limited Şirket Ortaklarının Kamu Alacağına İlişkin Sorumluluklarının Değerlendirilmesi”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 4, 2013/2, 75-104.
• Gerçek, A.(2005), “Türk Vergi Hukukunda Vergi Sorumlusu, Sorumluluk Halleri Ve Türlerinin İncelenmesi”, Ankara Üniversitesi, Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2005/3, Cilt 54, s. 157-193.
• Güzel, A., Okur, A., Caniklioğlu, N. (2016), Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku, Yenilenmiş 16. Bası, İstanbul.
• Pulaşlı, H. (2013), Şirketler Hukuku Genel Esaslar, Güncellenmiş 2. Baskı, Ankara.
• Silahşör, M. (2016), “Anonim Şirket Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Kamu Alacağı Sorumluluğu”, Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi, 2016/1, s.67-80.
• Yücel, M. (2012), “Vergi Usul Kanunu Ve Amme Alacaklarının Tahsil Usulü Hakkında Kanun Hükümlerine Göre Anonim Ve Limited Şirket Kanuni Temsilcileri Ve Sorumlulukları”, Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 2012/Temmuz-Ağustos, s.205-217.