The Company That Never Comes to the Technopark: Does an Address Create the Exemption?

The riskiest technopark structure I encounter is this one: the company is registered in the zone, space has been allocated, rent is being paid — but the work is actually happening somewhere else. The team is at the head office or entirely distributed, and the space in the zone sits empty for months.

That structure feels safe behind the sentence “we’re registered in a technopark”. It is not.

What does the exemption rest on?

Law No. 4691 grants the exemption to income that taxpayers operating in a zone derive exclusively from software, design and R&D activities in that zone.

The weight of the sentence sits on “in that zone”. The exemption is not an address advantage but a regime tied to where the activity is carried out.

Taking space and being registered in the zone are preconditions of that requirement — but not the requirement itself. A company that conflates the two looks compliant on paper while carrying an exposure in fact.

Remote work does not remove this requirement

The most common objection: “But remote work is allowed.”

True, but not the whole picture. The current rules permit work outside the zone at 100% for IT personnel and 75% for other project personnel, and that authorisation runs to 31.12.2026. The detail is in the remote work article.

That regulation does two things: it relaxes the question of where personnel physically sit, and it does so within a defined ratio. What it does not do:

• It does not legitimise a company having no factual link with the zone at all,
• It does not remove the obligation to notify and track the project with the zone management company,
• It does not create an exemption or incentive for the portion exceeding the ratio.

So remote work widens the gap between “a link with the zone” and “a physical presence in the zone” — it does not eliminate the link.

What does an audit look at?

When a technopark file is examined, actual activity is read through these documents:

Notifications to the zone management company. Which project, which personnel, what status. The notifications have to be regular and consistent with the actual position. A gap between headcount in the notifications and headcount on the payroll is one of the first things asked about.

Personnel entry and exit records. The most concrete evidence of physical presence in the zone. Even with the remote work ratios in play, these records are expected to be consistent with the ratio.

Project files and progress records. Output showing the project is genuinely being carried out. Code repositories, delivery records, meeting and progress notes.

Expenditure incurred in the zone. If there is no expenditure in the zone at all apart from rent — no hardware, consumables or services — that is a question mark in itself.

These four are read together. If one is weak the others can compensate; if all four are weak, the defence becomes difficult.

The real size of the risk

The point companies underestimate: the risk is not confined to the current year.

Every year in which the exemption was claimed is open to separate assessment. If a problem is identified at a company that has worked with the same structure for five years, the tax base for those years can be recalculated, with late payment interest added.

The payroll incentives rest on the same basis. When the earnings exemption is challenged, the incentives on the payroll side come onto the agenda in the same file.

That is why a “this year will do” approach carries the risk forward while enlarging it every year.

What should a company whose activity has drifted do?

To be honest, this situation usually arises not from bad faith but from drift. The company is set up in the zone, the team grows, the office is not enough, people disperse, and within a few years the link with the zone weakens in practice.

At that point there are three options, and the third is not one:

One: move the activity physically back into the zone. Position part of the team in the zone so as to stay within the ratios, and tie project execution to the zone. It has a cost, but it keeps the structure standing.

Two: review the amounts claimed under the exemption. If the factual position does not support the exemption, identify that and correct it. A correction you initiate is not the same thing as a finding you meet in an audit.

Three: paper over the current position with documents. This is not an option. Entry and exit records produced afterwards, project reports drawn up retrospectively — these do not reduce the risk, they change its character.

Which route fits depends on the company’s size, the years involved and the amounts; there is no general answer that can be given at a desk.

In short

The technopark exemption rests not on an address registration but on the activity being carried out in the zone. The remote work regulation relaxes that requirement within a defined ratio but does not remove it. In an audit the notifications, entry and exit records, project files and in-zone expenditure are read together.

For a company whose activity has drifted out of the zone, the right move is to establish the position and then either move the activity back or review the amounts claimed. There is no third route.

For the scope of the exemption see the scope article; for documentation, the YMM certification article.

Sources

• Law No. 4691 on Technology Development Zones, provisional article 2 — Legislation Information System
• Technology Development Zones Implementation Regulation, notification and supervision provisions — Legislation Information System
• Presidential Decision on ratios for working outside the zone — Official Gazette
• Advance rulings on the subject — Turkish Revenue Administration ruling database

---

This article reflects 2026 legislation and is provided for general information only; it is not legal or tax advice. Consult a licensed professional for your specific situation.