Tax authorities frequently apply secondary adjustments automatically through the construction of deemed dividends (constructive dividends) whenever a primary correction is identified during a taxpayer's transfer pricing audit. In the dispute involving PT JJCW (the Appellant), the Respondent issued an Article 26 Income Tax correction amounting to IDR 736,481,798.00, based on transfer pricing differences considered as profit distributions to overseas affiliates. However, the effectiveness of applying Article 18 paragraph (3) of the Income Tax Law was rigorously tested by the Board of Judges regarding the validity of the arm's length method and material evidence of actual dividend flows.
The core conflict stemmed from the Respondent's reclassification of the Appellant's functional profile into a pure contract manufacturer, which was deemed ineligible to incur losses. The Respondent employed the Cost Plus Method (CPM) to determine a fair margin, whereas the Appellant maintained the use of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The profitability gap between the Respondent's calculations and the Appellant's actual records was then treated as an "excess payment" and construed as a dividend under the relevant Article 10 of the Tax Treaty. The Appellant firmly rebutted this, stating that there were no General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) resolutions or actual fund flows that could be categorized as dividends under the Company Law.
The legal resolution was provided by the Board of Judges by dissecting the validity of the primary correction. The Board opined that the Appellant's selection of the TNMM was appropriate and met "The Most Appropriate Method" principle, as it was supported by consistent transfer pricing documentation. The Board rejected the Respondent's use of CPM because it failed to demonstrate specific product comparability. Since the primary correction on Corporate Income Tax could not be upheld, the secondary adjustment in the form of Article 26 Income Tax on deemed dividends automatically lost its legal basis (null and void).
An analysis of this decision demonstrates that secondary adjustments must not be applied simplistically without robust evidence of the primary transaction. The implication of this ruling provides legal certainty for taxpayers: as long as the transfer pricing method complies with the Arm's Length Principle (ALP) and is backed by strong documentation, allegations of deemed dividends can be refuted. In conclusion, the Board of Judges emphasized that tax corrections must stand on solid legal facts rather than mere economic assumptions regarding a company's functional structure.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id