Gelir Vergisi Kanunu’nun 40. ncı maddesinin 3’ncü bendinde “işle ilgili olmak şartıyle, mukavelenameye veya ilama veya kanun emrine istinaden ödenen zarar, ziyan ve tazminatların ticari kazancın tespitinde indirim konusu yapılacağı hüküm altına alınmıştır.

1.Zarar, ziyan ve tazminatın işle ilgili olması
2.Ödemenin mukavelename, ilam veya kanun emrine dayanması
3.Zarar, ziyan veya tazminat ödemesinin teşebbüs sahibinin kusurundan kaynaklanmaması, gerekmektedir.
 
Ancak diğer şartları taşısa dahi zarar, ziyan veya tazminat ödemesine konu olan işin kanunla yasaklanmış olması halinde sözkonusu ödemeler gider olarak indirim konusu yapılamaz. Nitekim Danıştay 4. Dairesi 20.03.1975 tarihinde vermiş olduğu kararda “Ağır ve Tehlikeli İşler Tüzüğüne aykırı hareketi nedeniyle 18 yaşından küçük işçinin uğradığı kazadan dolayı mahkeme kakarına dayanarak ödenen tazminatın gider yazılamayacağı” belirtilmiştir.

Gelir Vergisi Kanunu’nun 41’nci maddesinin 5’nci bendinin parantez içi hükmünde “akitlerde ceza şartı olarak derpiş edilen tazminatlar cezai mahiyette tazminat sayılmaz” hükmüne yer verilmiştir. Bu nedenle sözkonusu tazminatlar GVK’nun 40/3’ncü maddesi kapsamında değerlendirilip gider olarak dikkate alınacaktır.

Zarar, ziyan ve tazminatların gider yazılmasına olanak sağlayan kanun maddesinde yer alan “ödenen” ifadesi tartışma yaratacak niteliktedir. Bu ifade ile nakden mi yoksa hesaben ödemenin mi kasdedildiği açık değildir. Ancak sözkonusu giderlerde de tahakkuk esası uygulanmasının mümkün olacağı kanısındayız.

Compensation payments for losses and damages arising from works that are prohibited by law.

In Article 40/3 of the Income Tax Code, it is stated that  “Losses, damages, and indemnities paid based upon written agreements, judicial decrees, or by order of law are deductible in the determination of commercial earnings. provided they are relevant to the business”,
 
According to this provision, in order for a loss or damage to be recorded as expense, they should fulfill the following conditions:
 

1. The loss, damage or indemnity should be relevant to work;
2. The payment should be based on a contract, a writ, or a legal order,
3. The loss, damage or indemnity should not have occurred as the result of a fault committed by the owner of the enterprise.

However, even if the other conditions are fulfilled; in cases when the work that constitutes the subject matter of the payment of loss or damage is a type of work that has been prohibited by law,  the payments in question cannot be allowed for deduction as expense. In fact, in a resolution passed by the 4^th Department of the Council of State on 20.02.1975,  it has concluded that “Due to the action that is in breach of the Regulation Concerning Heavy and Dangerous Works” , the indemnification that has been to a worker who was younger than eighteen years of age,  due to a work accident that he has experienced, shall not be allowed for expense recording.”
 
In the provision added in parenthesis to paragraph 5 of Article 41 of the Income Tax Code,  it is stated that “Indemnities which are incurred as penalty clauses of contracts shall not be considered indemnities of a punitive nature.” Hence, the indemnities in question shall be assessed pursuant to Article 40/3 of the Income Tax Code, and shall be treated as expense. 
 
Meanwhile, the term “paid” used in the article, which allows the expense recording of the losses and damages, is open to debates. This term does not exactly signify whether the payments in question are to be made in cash or on account. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that in such expenses, accrual based applications shall be possible. Muhasebe Vergi