This tax dispute originated when the tax authority invoked Article 12 paragraph (3) of the KUP Law to correct the Value Added Tax (VAT) of PT MRP by IDR 228 million, based on the assumption of unreported building rental income. The Respondent (DGT) maintained that discrepancies in addresses listed on tax invoices compared to registered asset data indicated hidden rental objects. This conflict tests the boundaries of the tax authority's power to estimate tax liabilities based on administrative findings without substantial material evidence.
The core of the conflict centered on the discovery of the address "Jalan Timor Blok D No. 2" on tax invoices, while the reported assets were located at "Blok D3-1A". DGT interpreted this difference as an indication of a new taxable object. However, PT MRP argumentatively proved that the discrepancy was merely a clerical error. During the proceedings, PT MRP presented authentic evidence, including Land Use Rights (HGB) certificates and industrial zone maps, showing that "Blok D No. 2" was actually owned by a third party, making it impossible for the company to lease property it did not own.
The Board of Judges provided a decisive resolution, stating that corrections must be based on solid evidence directly related to the disputed object. The judges considered that the reconciliation with Corporate Income Tax did not show any turnover discrepancy, and the physical evidence of asset ownership effectively refuted DGT's assumptions. The impact of this ruling reaffirms that while administrative data validity like tax invoices is crucial, the material facts of asset ownership remain the highest evidentiary instrument in determining VAT objects. In conclusion, the court overturned the entire correction as the tax authority's assumption failed to override legitimate ownership evidence.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id