Supreme Court Decision: Unless Stated Otherwise, VAT Is Included In The Sale Price Of Real Estate
Summary:
In a sales contract, if it is not specifically and clearly stated that the sales price does not include VAT, it must be accepted that VAT is paid together with the sales price within this amount; otherwise, the plaintiff must prove that the VAT amount will be paid separately.
Republic of Turkey
Supreme Court
Case No: 2014/19132
Decision No: 2015/6993
Date: May 12, 2015
Following the trial of the case for the cancellation of the objection between the parties, the judgment dismissing the case for the reasons stated in the decision was appealed by the parties’ attorneys within the time limit, and the file was reviewed, and the necessary deliberations were made.
– DECISION –
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client company and the defendant company had agreed on the sale of eight plots of land from the land registry and that an invoice had been issued for this sale, that his client had sent the defendant an invoice for TL 214,760 -TL, and that the defendant had no objection to this invoice. However, the defendant paid 182,000-TL by deducting the VAT amount specified on the invoice. Therefore, they initiated enforcement proceedings against the defendant through the Kırklareli Enforcement Directorate under file no. 2013/**** , but the proceedings were suspended upon the defendant’s objection. The plaintiff requests that the objection be dismissed, the proceedings be continued, and the defendant be ordered to pay 20% enforcement compensation.
The defendant’s attorney states that the defendant and the plaintiff agreed on the purchase and sale of 8 properties for a price of 182,000 -TL, including VAT, and that the properties were purchased from the land registry for 182,000-TL, including VAT, and that the plaintiff’s demand for money under the name of VAT is not legal, requesting that the case be dismissed and that a 20% bad faith compensation be awarded against the plaintiff.
As a result of the trial conducted by the court, the burden of proof that the VAT amount would be paid by the defendant lies with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could not present any written evidence to this effect. Furthermore, according to Articles 200 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, witnesses cannot be heard regarding the amount of the claim. The official document dated 23.12. 2011 and numbered 12502, the immovable properties subject to the lawsuit were sold by the plaintiff to the defendant for a total price of TL 182,000, and that this deed did not contain any provision stating that the VAT would be paid by the defendant. According to the case law of the Court of Cassation (Court of Cassation 19th Civil Chamber, dated 03. 11.2010 and 2010/3127 E., 2010/12338 K., Supreme Court of Appeals 19th Civil Chamber’s 11.06.2013 and 2013/8012 E., 2013/10801 K. No..) unless it is specifically stated that the sales price does not include VAT, it is accepted that VAT is paid together with the sales price within the scope of this price, the plaintiff seller sold the real estate in question to the defendant in cash and in advance for a price of 182,000 TL with official title deeds, in the concrete case, there is no acceptance by the defendant buyer that they will pay VAT additionally, nor is there any document to that effect, and the invoice unilaterally issued by the plaintiff does not constitute such a document. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed, and since it could not be proven that the plaintiff pursued the case in bad faith, the defendant’s claim for compensation was also dismissed. The ruling was appealed by the parties’ attorneys.
Considering the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the compelling reasons, and since there is no inaccuracy in the assessment of the evidence, all appeals by the attorneys for the parties, which are deemed unfounded, are rejected, and the decision, which is found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, is APPROVED, and the approval fees specified below are to be collected from the appellants. The decision was made unanimously on 05.12.2015.