Absolute Victory in Tax Court: Why Customs Data Alone is Insufficient to Correct M Corporation’s Taxes?

PIB Data vs. Original Invoices: Analyzing BUT M Corporation’s Article 15 Victory

The tax authority performed a positive correction of the Final Income Tax Base under Article 15 for the January 2020 Tax Period against the BUT Representative of M Corporation, relying on the reconciliation of Import Declaration (PIB) data from the DJP-DJBC data exchange portal. This dispute centers on the attribution of the head office's export value to the activities of the representative office in Indonesia.

The Conflict: Third-Party Reconciliation and Indicative Corrections

The conflict began when the Respondent determined that the entire importation value recorded in third-party PIB data resulted from the Petitioner’s promotional and intermediary activities. Conversely, the Petitioner strongly refuted this, arguing that the correction was merely indicative since the Respondent lacked original invoice documents as transaction evidence.

Judicial Consideration: The Mandate of Strong and Competent Evidence

The Board of Judges emphasized that every tax assessment must be based on strong, clear, and competent evidence as mandated by Article 12 paragraph (3) and Article 29 paragraph (2) of the KUP Law. During the trial, it was proven that the Respondent failed to present primary source documents and relied solely on secondary PIB data. The Board assessed that the Petitioner successfully proved the validity of the numerical differences through legitimate accounting documents.

Conclusion: Ruling the Tax Due to Zero

This decision sends a crucial message for legal certainty: third-party reconciliation data cannot serve as the sole basis for correction without verifying source documents (invoices). In its ruling, the Board of Judges decided to grant the Petitioner's appeal in its entirety, resulting in the tax due being reduced to zero.