The Directorate General of Taxes often uses the reconciliation of Corporate Income Tax (CIT) with PPh Article 23 as a starting point for corrections, yet the Taxpayer PT GAP successfully partially reversed these corrections at the Tax Court through proving the substance of the transactions. This dispute centers on determining the object of withholding, the validity of the Certificate of Exemption (SKB) from the counterparty, and the determination of the timing of PPh Article 23 liability, especially concerning the recording of accrued expenses. The Majelis Hakim's affirmation that a pure accounting accrual does not yet meet the criteria of "made available for payment" for PPh Article 23 is a crucial issue that all Taxpayers should note.
The core conflict in this case is the difference in interpretation between the Taxpayer (WP) and the DGT regarding the nature of the expenditure and the timing of the tax withholding. The DGT made the correction under the assumption that all service costs listed in the income statement, which lacked PPh Article 23 withholding slips, were objects of PPh Article 23 according to PMK 141/PMK.03/2015. The DGT also argued that the un-legalized photocopy of the SKB submitted by the WP was invalid, and that accrued expenses were already liable for PPh 23 because they were booked as expenses. Conversely, the WP refuted this by providing evidence that a number of the corrected costs were purchases of goods (not services), involved counterparties with valid SKBs (despite lack of legalization), and that the recording of accrued expenses was an internal accounting mechanism that had not triggered the PPh Article 23 liability because there was no real payment or definite due date in that year.
The Majelis Hakim addressed this conflict by applying the principle of material truth and substance over form. Regarding the SGA-Professional Fee-Consultant Fee recorded as an accrued expense, the Majelis overturned the DGT's correction. The Majelis's legal opinion confirmed that a pure accrual entry alone does not equate to the criteria of "made available for payment" as stipulated in Article 15 paragraph (3) of Government Regulation 94 of 2010 (previously), as the entry's sole purpose was to comply with the accrual principle in financial reporting. Furthermore, concerning the SGA-Transportation-Freight item, the Majelis also overturned the DGT's correction, considering that the WP had proven the counterparty was subject to Final PPh PP 46/2013, thus transferring the PPh liability to the income recipient (even though the formal aspect of SKB legalization was not met). Conversely, the Majelis sustained the correction on items such as FOH-Indirect Materials-Spare part and SGA-Professional Fee-Legal Fee because the WP failed to prove that the transactions were purchases of goods or were not explicitly listed as Other Services subject to PPh Article 23.
The implication of this decision for tax practice is the reinforcement of the need for clear bookkeeping separation between cost of goods sold and services, and a clarification on the timing of PPh Article 23 withholding. Taxpayers must ensure that every service cost corrected by the DGT can be refuted with substantial evidence that the cost relates to the purchase of goods or has been subjected to Final PPh/PPh 21. Nevertheless, Taxpayers must remain cautious and ensure maximum compliance with the formalities of PPh Article 23 documents, including the SKB, to minimize the risk of disputes. Maximum formal compliance remains the first line of defense during audits.
Conclusion: This ruling demonstrates that arguments supported by strong accounting evidence, including a correct understanding of the PPh Article 23 liability timing for accrued expenses, can be key to successfully overturning tax authority corrections.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id