PTALSI, an automotive component manufacturer based in Karawang, West Java, produces leaf springs for four-wheel vehicles and trucks. The product serves as a crucial part of the suspension system, supporting vehicle load and maintaining stability during operation. As a full-fledged manufacturer, PTALSI engages in various affiliated transactions, including raw material procurement, management services, and technical support. All transactions have been analyzed for compliance with the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) through its Transfer Pricing Documentation (TP Doc.) .
The issue arose when the DGT made a positive fiscal adjustment of IDR 1,237,040,806 for Fiscal Year 2018. The adjustment covered two main aspects. First, the DGT considered that the management fee paid by PTALSI to its affiliated party did not reflect an arm’s length transaction in accordance with the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP). Second, the DGT rejected most of the comparable companies used in PTALSI’s Transfer Pricing Documentation and replaced them with its own set of comparables.
PTALSI maintained that the management fee represented legitimate consultancy services from its affiliate, which indirectly but effectively supported the company’s operations and production. The services included Quality Control (QC) and Research & Development (R&D) functions, where the affiliate provided technical guidance, evaluation, and recommendations to ensure product consistency and enhance production efficiency. Although the affiliate was not directly involved in day-to-day factory operations, its support demonstrably contributed to operational continuity and business sustainability. Therefore, the expenses met the criteria under Article 6 of the Income Tax Law, i.e., incurred to obtain, collect, and maintain income (3M principle), as substantiated in PTALSI’s Local File (pages 47–48).
Regarding the comparables, PTALSI used four companies considered functionally and economically similar: (1) CFAC Co., Ltd., (2) GMB Corporation, (3) DWOI Co., Ltd., and (4) DGJIN Co., Ltd. These companies operate in the manufacture of automotive parts and accessories for four-wheel vehicles and trucks. Based on this analysis, PTALSI’s Return on Sales (RoS) of 4.85% is above the interquartile range of its selected comparables (lower quartile 1.68%, median 2.53%, upper quartile 3.19%).
However, the DGT rejected three out of PTALSI’s four comparables (1) CFAC Co., Ltd., (2) DWOI Co., Ltd., and (3) DGJIN Co., Ltd., on the grounds that their products were not sufficiently comparable. The DGT retained only GMB Corporation and added four new comparables sourced from the TP Catalyst Oriana database: (1) A.S Co., Ltd., (2) F.C Co., Ltd., (3) YAP Co., Ltd., and (4) SBC Co., Ltd. Using these five comparables, the DGT recalculated the interquartile range and obtained significantly higher results: lower quartile 5.20%, median 6.80%, and upper quartile 7.79%. Consequently, PTALSI’s RoS of 4.85% was deemed below the DGT’s range of arm’s length profitability.
PTALSI argued that the DGT selected comparables solely based on profit margins, without properly considering the comparability of functions, assets, and risks (FAR analysis). This was evident from the profiles of the DGT’s additional comparables, all of which exhibited relatively high margins: A.S Co., Ltd. (5.93%), F.C Co., Ltd. (8.13%), YAP Co., Ltd. (6.59%), and SBC Co., Ltd. (7.67%). Conversely, PTALSI’s rejected comparables operated in more similar industries but had lower margins—CFAC Co., Ltd. (1.78%), DWOI Co., Ltd. (3.54%), and DGJIN Co., Ltd. (0.73%)—reflecting realistic profit levels for comparable manufacturers.
Moreover, the four additional comparables selected by the DGT came from industries that differed significantly from PTALSI’s line of business:
These fundamental differences demonstrated that the DGT’s comparables were not functionally or economically comparable to PTALSI, a manufacturer of components for four-wheel vehicles and trucks.
After evaluating all evidence and arguments, The Tax Court Panel of Judges concluded that PTALSI’s selected comparables were functionally and economically appropriate. Conversely, the four additional comparables used by the DGT were found to be non-comparable due to their differing industry characteristics. Such inconsistencies rendered the DGT’s benchmarking results unreliable and unrepresentative of PTALSI’s arm’s length profitability.
The Tax Court Panel of Judges also emphasized that rejecting comparables merely due to lower profit margins was unjustified. Determination of comparability must not rely solely on profitability levels but must be based on a robust FAR (Functions, Assets, and Risks) analysis. Therefore, The Tax Court Panel of Judges’s held that PTALSI’s benchmarking study complied with the Arm’s Length Principle, while the DGT’s approach could not be sustained.
In addition, The Tax Court Panel of Judges’s found that PTALSI’s management fee analysis was prepared in accordance with the ALP. The basis for cost allocation was clearly explained in the Local File, supported by a legally binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that detailed the scope of services, responsibilities of the parties, and cost allocation mechanism. The MoU served as concrete evidence that the management services were genuinely rendered and provided measurable economic benefits to PTALSI’s operations, particularly in the QC and R&D functions.
The Tax Court Panel of Judges’s further concluded that the presence of clear contractual documentation, corroborated by evidence of actual services and measurable benefits, confirmed the genuineness and arm’s length nature of the transaction. Furthermore, PTALSI’s RoS of 4.85% was within the interquartile range of the final comparables, confirming that its profitability level was consistent with arm’s length standards.
Based on the foregoing, The Tax Court Panel of Judges annulled the DGT’s fiscal adjustment and affirmed that PTALSI’s transfer pricing analysis was properly prepared and applied in line with the Arm’s Length Principle.
This decision underscores the importance of functional comparability in transfer pricing analysis. The use of comparables from unrelated industries or with disproportionate R&D intensity can distort arm’s length conclusions. For the DGT, this ruling serves as a reminder that accuracy in selecting comparables should not be driven merely by profit margins but by a balanced assessment of functions, assets, and risks. For taxpayers, the decision reinforces the value of comprehensive, credible, and evidence-based transfer pricing documentation as the most effective defense against unjustified tax adjustments.
Comprehensive and Complete Analysis of This Dispute is Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id