Losing the Proof, Winning Partially: PERUM B’s Crucial Lesson in PPh 22 Dispute Arising from VAT Data Discrepancy

Legal certainty regarding the Income Tax (PPh) Article 22 withholding obligation for State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) has once again been challenged at the Tax Court. The case involving PB (a corporate taxpayer), under Decision Number PUT-004988.11/2021/PP/M.XVIIIA Tahun 2025, highlights the complexity of implementing Article 22 of the Income Tax Law and the risk of disputes arising from the process of cross-checking tax administration data. The core dispute centered on the corrected Income Tax Base (DPP) of PPh Article 22 amounting to Rp. 2,414,069,323.00, which surfaced due to a discrepancy between purchasing data (VAT e-Invoices) and the Taxpayer's PPh withholding reports. The Tax Court Judge's decision to partially grant the Taxpayer's appeal provides a critical lesson on the absolute burden of proof in tax litigation.

The Directorate General of Taxes (DJP) based its correction on a data matching technique. The DJP found a significant discrepancy between the value of goods/materials purchases reported by PB in the Appendix B2 of the VAT Periodic Tax Return and the purchase e-Invoice data, compared to the total PPh Article 22 Tax Base reported by PB as the Withholding Agent. The assumption was that the entire disparity constituted an object of PPh Article 22 that should have been withheld by the SOE but was not performed. Conversely, PB strongly refuted this and stating that the PPh Article 22 withholding obligation had been executed for the majority of the corrected transactions. They argued that a correction based solely on VAT data discrepancies, without a detailed breakdown of the actual transaction types, was presumptive and invalid.

In resolving this conflict, the Tax Court Judges did not automatically side with either party. The Panel meticulously conducted an evidence review based on the principle of actori incumbit probatio (the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts). As a result, PB succeeded in presenting authentic evidence—in the form of PPh Article 22 withholding slips, Tax Payment Slips (SSP), and synchronized reporting—to annul the correction related to the Tax Base value of Rp. 2,080,369,778.00. This strong evidence proved that the withholding obligation for these specific transactions had indeed been fulfilled. However, PB failed to provide adequate evidence to refute the remaining correction of Rp. 333,699,545.00. This partial failure of proof compelled the Judges to uphold the remaining correction and ultimately decide to Partially Grant the appeal.

The implication of this "Partially Granted" decision is highly significant for all Taxpayers designated as PPh Article 22 Withholding Agents, especially SOEs/Regional SOEs. The decision affirms that the reliability of internal tax administration is key to prevailing in disputes. Taxpayers cannot rely merely on general refutations; they must be able to perform a flawless reconciliation between VAT Input data (which records all purchases) and PPh Withholding data (which only records mandatory withholding/collection transactions). Failure to provide documentation detailing transactions that were exempt or whose withholding obligation had been fulfilled, even for a relatively small amount, may result in the correction being upheld by the Tax Court.

In conclusion, the PB case serves as a stark reminder of the urgency of strengthening reconciliation systems and managing tax evidence. To minimize PPh Article 22 disputes arising from VAT data cross-checks, Taxpayers must proactively prepare highly detailed explanations and documentation for every discrepancy, even starting from the initial audit stage.

Comprehensive and Complete Analysis of This Dispute is Available Here