Disputes over the classification of sample expenses as deductible items often become a point of conflict between manufacturing taxpayers and tax authorities regarding the interpretation of Article 6(1) versus Article 9(1)e of the Income Tax Law. The PT Detpak Indonesia case reaffirms that sample costs for specific (customized) packaging products are not prohibited "gifts" or "free giveaways," but rather essential costs incurred to obtain, collect, and maintain income (3M).
The Respondent issued a positive correction on sample costs, arguing that the transaction constituted a free giveaway to customers because it was not accompanied by a nominative list as required by PMK-2/2010 concerning Promotion Costs. Conversely, the Petitioner argued that these samples were an integral part of the production and sales process to ensure product specifications matched the customer’s machinery before mass orders were placed.
The Board of Judges provided a progressive legal consideration by applying the "substance over form" principle. The Judges ruled that in the specialized packaging industry, providing samples is a transactional prerequisite for customers to perform operational trials. Since the objective is business continuity and achieving sales targets, these costs legally meet the 3M criteria. The absence of a promotional nominative list does not forfeit the right to deduct the expense because these samples are classified as sales/production costs, not pure promotional expenses.
This decision has significant implications for manufacturing companies to strengthen operational documentation showing a direct link between samples and sales contracts. This victory underscores that formal compliance should not override material facts regarding the nature of costs in conducting business activities.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id