Equalization of Lifetime Gifts in Turkish Inheritance Law: Civil Code Articles 669–675 for Foreign Heirs

1. What does inheritance equalization do?

Inheritance equalization (mirasta denkleştirme) prevents a legal heir who received certain gratuitous lifetime benefits from being treated as though those benefits never existed when the estate is divided. The mechanism is not a punishment and it does not automatically invalidate the lifetime transaction. It adjusts the relationship among heirs at partition.

The key question is whether the deceased made the lifetime transfer in a manner that Article 669 requires to be reflected in the recipient heir’s share. The law therefore looks not only at the estate that remains on the date of death but also at specified benefits received before death.

This issue appears frequently in international families. One child may have received a Turkish apartment years earlier, another may have received capital to establish a business abroad, while a third received nothing during the parent’s lifetime. At death, the heirs may disagree about whether those earlier benefits should be counted in the partition.

The current statutory wording is available in the Turkish Grand National Assembly text of the Civil Code.

2. Article 669: lifetime benefits received on account of an inheritance share

Article 669 states that legal heirs are obliged toward one another to return, for equalization, lifetime gratuitous benefits they received from the deceased on account of their inheritance shares. The statutory relationship is therefore between the legal heirs participating in the eventual estate division.

Three elements should be tested. First, the recipient must be a legal heir within the equalization structure. Second, there must be a lifetime benefit from the deceased. Third, the benefit must fall within the statutory equalization rule rather than being an excluded ordinary gift or another transaction that the deceased clearly intended to remain outside equalization.

Evidence of the transfer matters. Bank records, title deeds, company capital documents, debt-release agreements, tax filings and written communications can show what was transferred and whether consideration was paid. Family descriptions such as “our father helped him a lot” are not precise enough for a serious equalization calculation.

The equalization analysis is separate from determining whether the transfer was fictitious, fraudulent or otherwise invalid. A genuine lifetime gift can still be subject to equalization even though no one disputes that the gift itself was legally valid.

3. Special rule for descendants: dowry, business capital, property and debt release

The second paragraph of Article 669 creates a strong rule for lifetime benefits to descendants. Unless the deceased expressly stated otherwise, gratuitous benefits such as providing dowry, start-up capital, transfer of property, release from debt and similar benefits to descendants are subject to equalization.

The examples are deliberately broad. A parent who transfers a property without payment, gives substantial business capital, pays a major debt or provides another significant gratuitous economic advantage may create an equalization issue even if the family never used that legal term at the time.

The statute also makes the deceased’s contrary intention important. If the deceased clearly stated that the benefit should not be subject to equalization, that intention can change the Article 669 result, while other mandatory inheritance rules remain relevant. The clarity and proof of that intention therefore matter.

A foreign heir should preserve contemporaneous documents showing the purpose of the transfer. A later statement by the recipient that “it was a separate gift” has less evidentiary value than a written declaration made by the deceased when the transfer occurred.

4. Article 670: what if the recipient later loses heir status?

Article 670 prevents the equalization system from being defeated merely because the original recipient no longer inherits. If an heir who had an equalization obligation loses heir status before or after the inheritance opens, the obligation passes to the heirs who replace that person in proportion to the increase occurring in their inheritance shares.

This rule becomes important where representation changes the succession structure. The family tree on the date of the original gift may not be identical to the heirship structure at death or partition. Counsel must therefore trace both the original recipient and the persons who later take that position in the succession.

Foreign civil-status records may be necessary to prove deaths, descendants, adoptions or other family relationships affecting substitution. The equalization calculation cannot be completed reliably without an accurate heirship structure.

5. Article 671: return the asset or charge its value against the share

Article 671 gives the heir who owes equalization a choice. The heir may return the benefit in kind or, even if its value exceeds the heir’s inheritance share, have the value charged against the inheritance share.

This choice can have major practical consequences where the lifetime benefit was real estate. Returning the same property to the equalization pool is not economically identical to keeping it and accounting for its value against the recipient’s share. Current value, title status, improvements, income and later transactions can all affect the preferred route.

The article expressly preserves the deceased’s dispositions contrary to the default mechanism and the heirs’ rights concerning reduction. Equalization therefore cannot be analyzed in isolation from testamentary intent and reserved-share law.

For estate division generally, see our guide on partition of inheritance in Turkey under Articles 642–644.

6. Articles 672–673: benefits exceeding the inheritance share and valuation

Article 672 addresses a benefit whose value exceeds the recipient’s inheritance share. If the heir proves that the deceased intended the heir to keep the excess, the amount exceeding the share is not subject to equalization. The other heirs’ rights to reserved-share reduction remain protected.

The burden of proving the deceased’s intention becomes decisive. A clear written statement, properly drafted estate-planning document or other reliable evidence can be more persuasive than a post-death family interpretation.

Article 673 sets the valuation date: equalization is made according to the value of the benefit at the time of equalization. This can dramatically change the numbers for property transferred years earlier. The original purchase price or tax declaration value is not automatically the equalization value.

For benefits, losses, income and expenses, Article 673 applies unjust-enrichment principles between heirs. A property that produced rent, required major repairs or changed materially in value therefore requires more than a simple historic-price calculation.

7. Education expenses, ordinary gifts and marriage expenses

Article 674 deals with education and training expenses for children. Unless the deceased’s contrary intention is proven, only the portion exceeding customary levels is subject to a return obligation. The law therefore distinguishes ordinary parental support for education from exceptional expenditures that may need to be reflected in partition.

The same article provides that a child who has not completed education or training, or who has a disability, is entitled to an equitable payment in the partition. This rule protects an heir whose support needs remain materially unfinished when the inheritance opens.

Article 675 excludes ordinary gifts and customary marriage expenses from equalization. It also establishes a presumption that customary dowry expenses for descendants’ marriages, within ordinary limits, were intended not to be subject to equalization.

The line between an ordinary gift and a substantial lifetime wealth transfer depends on the transaction and family circumstances. A modest wedding present and the transfer of a valuable apartment are not treated as equivalent merely because both were given in connection with marriage.

8. Equalization is not the same as reserved-share reduction

Equalization and reduction (tenkis) are separate institutions. Equalization primarily adjusts lifetime gratuitous benefits among legal heirs in the partition. Reduction protects reserved-share heirs when testamentary or qualifying lifetime dispositions exceed the deceased’s disposable portion.

A transfer can raise both issues. Article 671 expressly preserves reduction rights, and Article 672 again states that other heirs’ reduction rights remain unaffected where the recipient proves the deceased intended the excess to remain with that heir.

The correct litigation or partition strategy therefore asks two questions separately: must the benefit be brought into equalization, and does the transfer also infringe a protected reserved share? See our guide on reserved shares under Civil Code Articles 505–506.

Failure to separate the remedies can produce an incorrect calculation. The estate base, statutory shares, equalization items and reduction analysis should be set out in separate steps.

9. Foreign heirs, Turkish assets and evidence from abroad

For an international estate, Article 20 of Law No. 5718 must be addressed before applying Turkish inheritance rules to every asset. Inheritance is generally governed by the deceased’s national law, while Turkish law governs immovable property located in Turkey. This can create a split analysis where lifetime benefits and remaining estate assets are located in different countries.

Our guide on Turkish inheritance law for foreigners under MÖHUK Article 20 explains that conflicts framework. The equalization claim should be designed only after the applicable law and estate assets are identified.

Foreign bank records, property documents, debt-release instruments and company records may be critical evidence of lifetime benefits. Documents intended for Turkish proceedings may require apostille or legalization and certified Turkish translation. See apostille and certified translation for foreign documents.

For Turkish real estate transferred before death, obtain historical title-deed records, transaction values and current valuation. If the recipient later sold or encumbered the property, the chain of transactions should be documented instead of relying solely on the current title.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is inheritance equalization in Turkey?

It is the adjustment of specified lifetime gratuitous benefits received by legal heirs so that those benefits are reflected in the eventual partition.

2. Are all lifetime gifts subject to equalization?

No. Article 669 defines the relevant benefits, and Articles 674–675 exclude or limit ordinary education, gifts and customary marriage expenses.

3. Is a property transferred free to a child usually relevant?

Yes. Article 669 specifically includes gratuitous property transfers to descendants unless the deceased expressly indicated otherwise.

4. What if the recipient is no longer an heir?

Article 670 can transfer the equalization obligation to replacement heirs in proportion to the increase in their shares.

5. Must the recipient return the actual property?

Not necessarily. Article 671 permits return in kind or charging the value against the inheritance share.

6. What if the gift was worth more than the inheritance share?

Article 672 excludes the excess from equalization if the heir proves that the deceased intended the heir to keep it, while reserved-share rights remain protected.

7. Which value is used?

Article 673 uses the value at the time of equalization.

8. Are ordinary wedding gifts counted?

No. Article 675 excludes ordinary gifts and customary marriage expenses from equalization.

9. Is equalization the same as a reserved-share action?

No. Equalization adjusts specified lifetime benefits among heirs; reduction protects reserved shares against excessive dispositions.

10. Can a foreign heir pursue equalization in Turkey?

Yes where Turkish law and Turkish jurisdiction apply to the relevant inheritance dispute, subject to the cross-border rules and evidence requirements.

Av. Halil Bakırcı tarafından hazırlanmış, Av. Emirhan Keskin tarafından incelenmiştir.

About the Author

Avukat Halil BAKIRCI is registered with the Mersin Bar Association (No. 3472). He provides legal advice and representation in criminal, family, employment, property and commercial matters at Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office.

Reviewed by: Av. Emirhan Keskin · Mersin Bar Association No: 5507

View Halil Bakırcı’s profile →