The Respondent’s positive correction of the Income Tax Article 15 base, amounting to IDR 251,554,095,639, was based on the equalization of import data (PIB) from the DJP-DJBC portal, which was presumed to be the gross export value of M Corporation Japan to Indonesia facilitated by the Permanent Establishment (PE) of M Corporation (BUT MC). The Respondent applied the specific calculation norm under KEP-667/PJ./2001.
The core conflict in this dispute revolves around proving the link between the import data in the PIB and the actual activities of the KPDA in Indonesia. The Petitioner argued that not all transactions were facilitated by the KPDA (e.g., chemical products). Furthermore, the Petitioner contested the use of CIF values instead of the contracted FOB values, alongside timing differences and exchange rate variances.
The Board of Judges opined that the Respondent failed to provide concrete evidence linking each transaction in the PIB data to the Petitioner’s active role. The Board emphasized that Article 12 Paragraph (3) of the KUP Law requires corrections to be based on strong and competent evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that discrepancies arose from non-KPDA transactions and delivery terms, supported by valid internal documents.
The implication of this decision reaffirms that third-party data (such as PIB) cannot be used as the sole basis for tax correction without thorough verification of the transaction’s substance. This ruling provides legal protection for KPDAs against being taxed on transactions substantially unrelated to their presence in Indonesia. In conclusion, data accuracy and the segregation of business lines are crucial factors.