The 100% profit deduction for software service exports in 2026

What changed in 2026?

Presidential Decision No. 11257 dated 30 April 2026 set the deduction at 100% for certain service-export profits under Income Tax Law Article 89/13 and the service-export provision of Corporate Tax Law Article 10. It applies to income and profits for tax periods beginning on or after 1 January 2026.

Alongside software, the law lists services including architecture, engineering, design, data storage, data processing and data analysis. An appropriate activity code is not enough by itself; the service actually supplied and its place of use must be evidenced.

100% of which amount?

The deduction applies to the profit from these activities, not the invoice total. A separate profit calculation should allocate direct costs and an appropriate share of common expenses. Where the same team serves domestic and foreign activities, the allocation method must be consistent.

The requirement to transfer the entire profit to Turkey by the relevant return's filing date must be monitored separately. Invoices, receipts and exchange differences should reconcile for each customer.

Separate VAT from corporate income tax

The corporate or personal income tax deduction and the VAT exemption for exported services are different provisions. Meeting the conditions for one does not automatically satisfy the other. For VAT, separately assess whether the service is provided for an overseas customer and used abroad.

Keep the contract, delivery records, user or project location, invoice, bank receipt and profit calculation in the same file. An attractive rate is a reason to strengthen documentation, not lower the standard.

Defining the scope and the right question

The subject of “The 100% profit deduction for software service exports in 2026” cannot be assessed reliably by looking at one rate or one provision in isolation. The parties, place of activity, manner in which income arises, contractual basis of the payment and economic risks assumed by the business must first be identified. what changed in 2026? is therefore not a secondary technical point; it helps determine the direction of the review. Two transactions that appear similar may produce different accounting and tax outcomes when the status of the parties, date, country, delivery method or nature of the service changes.

The first practical step is to express the decision question in one clear sentence. Is the business trying to record an existing transaction, identify a historic exposure, compare structures before launch or prepare a recurring compliance process? Without this distinction the review quickly becomes unfocused. The observation that the customer must be abroad and the service must be used exclusively abroad. should not be recorded as a bare conclusion. The file should also state the evidence required, the assumptions used and the date of the legislation and guidance on which the analysis relies.

Legal form and economic reality should be read together. A registered activity code, invoice description or contract heading is not sufficient on its own. The file should include the work performed by personnel, digital platforms used, output delivered to the customer, cancellation and refund terms, ownership of intellectual property and the route through which money is collected. This makes the conclusion on the 100% profit deduction for software service exports in 2026 depend on the real operational flow rather than on labels chosen for individual documents.

Timing requires a separate review. Conditions for an exemption, incentive or filing obligation may change during a year, while transitional provisions, administrative explanations and technical system changes may affect the result. The transaction date, invoice date, collection date and period in which the service or delivery is completed should therefore be recorded separately. When applying the observation that the deduction applies to profit from the relevant activity, not to gross revenue., the source dates should remain in the working papers and the same conclusion should not automatically be carried into a later period.

A useful review records the current position, missing evidence, responsible people and next actions. This turns the service exports assessment into a traceable file that can be updated and explained when circumstances or legislation change.

Mapping the business model and money flow

The subject of “The 100% profit deduction for software service exports in 2026” cannot be assessed reliably by looking at one rate or one provision in isolation. The parties, place of activity, manner in which income arises, contractual basis of the payment and economic risks assumed by the business must first be identified. 100% of which amount? is therefore not a secondary technical point; it helps determine the direction of the review. Two transactions that appear similar may produce different accounting and tax outcomes when the status of the parties, date, country, delivery method or nature of the service changes.

The first practical step is to express the decision question in one clear sentence. Is the business trying to record an existing transaction, identify a historic exposure, compare structures before launch or prepare a recurring compliance process? Without this distinction the review quickly becomes unfocused. The observation that the deduction applies to profit from the relevant activity, not to gross revenue. should not be recorded as a bare conclusion. The file should also state the evidence required, the assumptions used and the date of the legislation and guidance on which the analysis relies.

Timing requires a separate review. Conditions for an exemption, incentive or filing obligation may change during a year, while transitional provisions, administrative explanations and technical system changes may affect the result. The transaction date, invoice date, collection date and period in which the service or delivery is completed should therefore be recorded separately. When applying the observation that transferring the full profit to turkey by the filing date is a critical requirement., the source dates should remain in the working papers and the same conclusion should not automatically be carried into a later period.

Assessing the tax character step by step

The subject of “The 100% profit deduction for software service exports in 2026” cannot be assessed reliably by looking at one rate or one provision in isolation. The parties, place of activity, manner in which income arises, contractual basis of the payment and economic risks assumed by the business must first be identified. separate vat from corporate income tax is therefore not a secondary technical point; it helps determine the direction of the review. Two transactions that appear similar may produce different accounting and tax outcomes when the status of the parties, date, country, delivery method or nature of the service changes.

The first practical step is to express the decision question in one clear sentence. Is the business trying to record an existing transaction, identify a historic exposure, compare structures before launch or prepare a recurring compliance process? Without this distinction the review quickly becomes unfocused. The observation that transferring the full profit to turkey by the filing date is a critical requirement. should not be recorded as a bare conclusion. The file should also state the evidence required, the assumptions used and the date of the legislation and guidance on which the analysis relies.

Timing requires a separate review. Conditions for an exemption, incentive or filing obligation may change during a year, while transitional provisions, administrative explanations and technical system changes may affect the result. The transaction date, invoice date, collection date and period in which the service or delivery is completed should therefore be recorded separately. When applying the observation that the customer must be abroad and the service must be used exclusively abroad., the source dates should remain in the working papers and the same conclusion should not automatically be carried into a later period.