RUSF on Foreign Currency Loans in Turkey: A Legal and Practical Analysis

Introduction

On 18 July 2025, Presidential Decree No. 10094 (published in the Official Gazette No. 32959) introduced a 1% Resource Utilization Support Fund (RUSF) levy on foreign currency loans extended by Turkish resident banks and financial institutions.

This measure, widely described as the “RUSF brake” on foreign currency lending, directly increases the cost of financing. Unlike interest-based levies, the RUSF is calculated on the principal amount of the loan at the time of disbursement, making credit more expensive from the outset.

The implementation has raised practical and legal questions—particularly in cases involving loan extensions (temdit) and refinancing/restructuring.

How RUSF Works on Domestic FX and Gold Loans

The mechanics of the RUSF are straightforward:

• At the time of loan disbursement, the loan principal (or for gold loans, the notional gold amount) is converted into Turkish lira using the Central Bank’s FX buying rate.

• The resulting TL equivalent serves as the tax base (matrah).

• The lending bank or financial institution withholds the 1% RUSF upfront, in addition to standard financing costs.

This new RUSF rate applies to all FX and gold loans disbursed on or after 18 July 2025. Loans extended before this date are not affected.

The Controversy: Extensions and Refinancing

After the new rule came into effect, the financial sector quickly raised concerns about its scope of application:

1. Should a loan extension (temdit) be considered a “new” loan subject to RUSF?

2. Should refinancing or restructuring trigger an additional RUSF liability?

The Revenue Administration (GİB) has issued interpretative guidance to the Turkish Banks Association (TBB), but its wording has left room for uncertainty.

Legal Position on Loan Extensions (Temdit)

From a legal and economic perspective, a loan extension does not represent the use of new resources—it is merely the continuation of an existing facility.

In a 2015 opinion letter to the TBB, the GİB stated:

• If a loan agreement is extended without altering the principal, no additional RUSF should be charged.

• If the principal amount is increased, RUSF applies only to the incremental portion.

This interpretation aligns with the fundamental character of RUSF: it is imposed at the moment of resource utilization. Without fresh disbursement, there is no new “resource” being used, and therefore no new RUSF liability should arise.

By contrast, treating an extension as a new loan would effectively impose double taxation—collecting RUSF twice on the same facility, which is inconsistent with the purpose of the regulation.

Refinancing and Restructuring Transactions

The same reasoning applies to refinancing:

• If refinancing merely replaces or prolongs the maturity of an existing loan, no new RUSF should be triggered.

• If restructuring includes the disbursement of additional FX credit, the incremental amount is subject to the 1% RUSF levy.

This distinction is critical, as refinancing is a common liquidity management tool for corporates. An overly broad interpretation by the authorities could lead to significant unintended financing costs.

Domestic vs. Cross-Border Loans

Another layer of complexity arises when comparing domestic and cross-border loans:

• For foreign loans with an average maturity of less than three years, GİB has previously confirmed that extensions do not trigger new RUSF liabilities.

• For domestic loans, however, some interpretations suggest that extensions may be treated as new disbursements subject to RUSF—even though the legal framework does not differentiate between the two.

This inconsistent approach lacks any statutory basis. Both domestic and foreign FX loans fall within the scope of the same RUSF framework, and an extension alone should not create a new obligation.

The Regulatory Gap

The root of the problem is the absence of higher-ranking legislation. The RUSF regime is not codified in a statute or comprehensive regulation but implemented through Presidential decrees and administrative circulars.

This means that in ambiguous cases, practice is shaped by administrative interpretations rather than clear law. As a result, both lenders and borrowers face compliance uncertainty and risk inconsistent application.

Conclusion

The introduction of the 1% RUSF levy has raised the cost of foreign currency borrowing in Turkey. However, its application to loan extensions and refinancing remains unsettled.

Key takeaways include:

• Loan extensions (temdit) should not be considered new disbursements; no additional RUSF should be charged.

• Restructuring only triggers RUSF where additional credit is disbursed.

• There is no justification for distinguishing between domestic and cross-border FX loans.

Unless further clarified by legislation, the risk of inconsistent treatment will persist. For borrowers and lenders, close monitoring of Revenue Administration guidance is critical.

👉 Reach us:
If your company relies on foreign currency financing in Turkey, the correct application of RUSF rules can significantly reduce your borrowing costs. At Özmen Consultancy, we provide tailored advisory services on loan structuring, refinancing, and tax optimization. [Contact us today] to safeguard your financing strategy against unnecessary RUSF liabilities.

info@ozmconsultancy.com