The Respondent issued a positive adjustment on Other Business Expenses (Joint Cost) amounting to IDR 394,489,048,141.00 based on an estimated income proportionality, assuming the Taxpayer failed to segregate accounting records between final and non-final income as mandated by Article 27 of PP 94/2010. This dispute centers on differing interpretations regarding the adequacy of cost segregation evidence provided by a life insurance company in its internal investment operations.
The Respondent argued that since the Petitioner failed to present explicit cost classifications for each type of income during the objection stage, all operational costs must be treated as common costs. Consequently, a proportionality formula was applied to determine the non-deductible portion. Conversely, the Petitioner asserted that they had performed accounting segregation through specific investment cost centers and had independently made fiscal adjustments in their Tax Return.
The Board of Judges conducted a thorough examination of the material evidence submitted. It was established that the Petitioner maintained an organizational structure that separated the investment division, supported by formal Board Decrees and clear Job Descriptions. The Detail General Ledger convincingly demonstrated that investment costs were managed in separate accounts and were not commingled with general operational expenses.
Key Strategic Takeaway: Based on the trial facts, the Respondent's use of a proportional method was deemed irrelevant when actual evidence of cost segregation was available. This decision underscores the necessity of clear cost center separation and synchronized documentation as primary defense instruments against estimated tax adjustments.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id