This Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) dispute highlights a fundamental clash between meeting the deductibility requirements under Article 6 paragraph (1) of the Income Tax Law and strict tax administration compliance. PT KMP (PT KMP), a medical device procurement company, faced a substantial COGS correction of IDR 23,298,675,301 imposed by the Director General of Taxes (DGT). This material correction stemmed from PT KMP's failure to provide complete and competent supporting documentation, compounded by the finding that Input VAT Invoices from the suppliers were neither reported nor remitted to the state treasury. This issue sparked DGT’s doubt regarding the transaction's validity. The core legal question is to what extent a third-party supplier's formal failure can nullify an expense that the buyer deems substantively real.
The DGT's correction argument was grounded in Article 28 and Article 29 of the General Tax Provisions and Procedures Law (KUP Law), emphasizing that PT KMP could not adequately substantiate the flow of money and goods. The Invoices/Tax Invoices submitted were deemed flawed as they lacked complete supplier details (NPWP/address). Crucially, DGT's data indicated that the suppliers (PT Duta Berlian, PT Wira Bakti Muda, etc.) failed to report or remit the Output VAT on the supply transaction via the DGT Portal. This reinforced the suspicion that the purchase transactions were fictitious or of dubious validity, making the COGS correction mandatory under Article 6 paragraph (1) of the Income Tax Law.
The Tax Court Panel of Judges carefully separated the two components of the correction: the Cost of Purchase (Tax Base) and the VAT expensed.
1. Decision on the Cost of Purchase (IDR 21,184,948,727): The Panel granted the appeal for this correction. The Panel's consideration was that the substance of the transaction must prevail. Since the outflow of goods (sales) was acknowledged, and upholding the correction would result in an unreasonable GPM, the expense was deemed real and deductible under Article 6 paragraph (1) of the Income Tax Law.
2. Decision on the VAT Expensed (IDR 2,118,494,871.60): The Panel upheld this correction (denied the appeal). Although the VAT had been paid by PT KMP, the fact that the supplier failed to remit the VAT to the state treasury (as supported by DGT data) was deemed critical. The Panel referenced the provision on joint and several liability under Article 16 F of the VAT Law, which implicitly confirms that unremitted VAT cannot constitute a legitimate expense component for CIT purposes.
This decision provides a crucial lesson: The Tax Court tends to accept the deductibility of expenses (COGS) as long as substantive reality and business reasonableness can be proven, even if formal weaknesses exist. However, the Panel remains very strict on issues concerning state losses, such as the rejection of the expensed VAT because the supplier failed to remit it. The implication for Taxpayers is that for material transactions, evidence must go beyond just the purchase invoice; it must be supported by transparent and traceable flow of funds and, critically, due diligence on the supplier's VAT compliance to mitigate the risk of non-deductible/unclaimable VAT burden. This ruling solidifies that supplier non-compliance can significantly penalize the buyer through VAT-related risks.
The PT KMP dispute resulted in a Partial Grant. This ruling sets an important precedent that balances the principle of the 3M expense (Article 6 Income Tax Law) and the principle of VAT compliance (Article 16 F VAT Law). Taxpayers must learn to strengthen transparent money transfer documentation and proactively verify the VAT status of their suppliers' Tax Invoices.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id