Creditable Input VAT must fulfill the criteria of a direct connection with business activities (Obtaining, Collecting, and Maintaining income) as stipulated in Article 11 Paragraph (8) letter b of the VAT Law. In this dispute, the Respondent corrected the Input VAT for the March 2020 Tax Period amounting to IDR 44,591,683.00 belonging to PT LTD. The tax authority argued that expenditures for rented office renovations and certain equipment purchases did not have a direct correlation with the company’s main operations in the digital technology sector and doubted the validity of the cash flow.
The Petitioner firmly refuted the correction by presenting arguments that office renovation is an absolute prerequisite for employees to work optimally, which indirectly supports the company's revenue generation. During the trial, the Petitioner presented concrete evidence in the form of invoices, valid Tax Invoices, lease agreements, and bank statements to prove that the transactions actually occurred and were related to the company's activities.
The Tax Court Judges, after conducting an in-depth examination and evidence test, provided a legal opinion that offered clarity for the Taxpayer. The Panel of Judges opined that expenditures for the improvement of the place of business (office) are costs that substantially support operational activities. However, the Panel also took a strict stance on the evidentiary aspect; only Input VAT amounting to IDR 29,394,312.00 was granted as it was supported by strong cash flow evidence and documents, while the remainder remained corrected due to the failure to prove its connection with 3M activities.
This decision emphasizes that although rented office renovation costs can in principle be credited, the strength of documentary evidence and cash flow becomes the absolute determinant in winning a dispute at the Tax Court. Companies must ensure every cent of Input VAT is supported by neat administration and a logical explanation regarding its relationship with the main business activities.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here