The application of the Arm's Length Principle (ALP) under Article 18 paragraph (3) of the Indonesian Income Tax Law (UU PPh) frequently triggers significant domino effects on the Value Added Tax (VAT) aspect. In the VAT appeal filed by PT GCPI (formerly PT MM), the Tax Court confronted the logical consequence of the Income Tax (PPh in Indonesian) royalty expense correction, which was determined to be nil by the Director General of Taxes (DJP). This correction subsequently led to a correction of the Input VAT on Imported Intangible Taxable Goods (PPN PJLN in Indonesian) amounting to IDR 438,570,418.00. The core of this dispute lies in the DJP's rejection to credit the VAT Payment Slip (SSP PPN in Indonesian) paid by PT GCPI, on the basis that the underlying royalty transaction lacked a justifiable economic value, thus setting its replacement value to nil.
The conflict originated from the DJP's determination that the 2% royalty expense paid by PT GCPI to a foreign affiliate must be eliminated to IDR 0.00. The DJP argued that PT GCPI's sales increase was due to its own massive domestic promotion activities, not the use of the G logo under the royalty scheme, concluding that the royalty payment did not satisfy the arm's length principle. A consequence of this Income Tax expense elimination is the failure of the underlying PPN PJLN (which was already paid via SSP) to meet the material requirements, thus rendering the SSP PPN uncreditable as a valid Input Tax. PT GCPI, conversely, strongly rebutted, asserting that the 2% royalty rate fell within the arm's length range and was supported by comprehensive Transfer Pricing Documentation (TP Doc). PT GCPI maintained that eliminating the expense to zero was an overreach of the DJP's authority, which should be limited to adjusting the value to one that is reasonable.
In this VAT decision, the Panel of Judges fundamentally anchored its substantial considerations to the relevant Income Tax decision, which had rejected PT GCPI's Income Tax appeal. This implies the Panel essentially agreed that the royalty value should be nil due to the absence of economic benefit. Consequently, the SSP PPN paid by PT GCPI could not be treated as a valid creditable Input Tax because the underlying transaction (royalty) had been nullified. However, a unique resolution emerged from the Panel. The Judges identified a methodological error committed by the DJP: allocating the total VAT paid (IDR 5,262,845,010.00) proportionally across 12 Tax Periods. The Panel judged this proportional allocation method as inaccurate because it did not align with the actual timing of the VAT payments (deposits).
In the interest of legal certainty and justice, even though the SSP PPN could not be credited as Input Tax, the Panel ruled that the entire VAT amount already paid by PT GCPI must be directly offset against the total VAT liability due (treated as tax that was not truly due). Based on this inaccuracy in the DJP's correction method, the Panel of Judges fully granted PT GCPI's appeal. This decision provides a crucial lesson for both Taxpayers and the DJP. For Taxpayers, it is a warning that Income Tax Transfer Pricing disputes will always impact PPN on Imported Services. The Taxpayer's litigation strategy in VAT cases must shift: if the Income Tax royalty decision is final and rejects the royalty, the focus of the VAT litigation should be ensuring that the SSP PPN already paid (as proof of deposit) is considered as an overpayment or tax that was not truly due, rather than simply debating it as Input Tax.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id