Chamber asks for shift in trade code

ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News

Murat Yalçıntaş AA photo

The head of Istanbul Chamber of Commerce (İTO), Murat Yalçıntaş, addressed six problematic issues with the new trade code, which is slated to take effect on July 1, in a written statement issued yesterday. 

“The İTO and Istanbul business community are happy about some new features of the Turkish Trade code. ... Yet there are some points that should be reviewed,” he said. 

One of those points, he says, is that imposing the obligation to obtain an independent external audit on all companies, regardless of their scale, is wrong. There should be a classification system based on company size, and a gradual transition to the new arrangement. External auditing could pose a significant expense for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME). The auditors are also given exceptional powers, which may be challenging for companies. If an independent external auditor returns a negative report, a company’s managing board would be required to resign.

The code prohibits promissory transactions between a company and its partners. This may create problems for SME’s. Limits should be set on such transactions instead, he said. 

Yalçıntaş also said companies will be bothered by a requirement to establish Web sites, adding that company information, which is supposed to be published on the Web sites, should be arranged with consideration for business and personal security. The new law also requires all of the information on a company’s Web site to exist in hard copy. In case of any change to the information on the Web, the company would also have to change the hard copy accordingly, and have it notarized. This arrangement should be changed, as it will be an extra cost for companies, Yalcıntaş said.

Merchants will be required to reveal information regarding company officials and company capital clearly on every document, under the new law. He feels the information to be revealed should be limited, and the concept of a “document” should be clearly defined. The last point he addressed is administrative fine authorization, which, in his opinion, should remain under the jurisdiction of the commercial courts, rather than becoming the responsibility of registry offices within chambers of commerce, as required under the new law.