The application of the arm’s length principle in affiliated transactions has once again become a legal battleground between Taxpayers and the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT), as illustrated in this ruling. This dispute dissects the limitations of the DGT as a tax authority in performing profit adjustments through the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), which often relies solely on statistical data without considering the company’s operational realities. The core of the conflict centers on the comparable search process, which serves as the foundation for determining whether an entity's profits align with market prices (arm’s length).
The DGT issued significant adjustments after assessing that PT UI, as a company engaged in support services, reported unreasonable profits. Utilizing commercial databases, the DGT selected a group of comparable companies with margins far exceeding those of PT UI. Conversely, PT UI challenged this by arguing that the comparables were not "apple-to-apple" because they included companies with patent ownership and marketing functions—features not possessed by PT UI, which operates as a limited-risk service provider.
In its resolution, the Board of Judges emphasized that comparability is not merely about sharing the same industry code but about economic substance. The Panel eliminated comparables with mismatched functional profiles, such as companies with high R&D expenditures or those operating in markets with vastly different economic characteristics. Consequently, the arm’s length profit was recalculated using fairer parameters, leading to a Partial Grant (Kabul Sebagian) decision.
The Panel overturned adjustments regarding the purchase price difference from an affiliate (PT UMI), coal purchase costs, and marketing operational expenses, as PT UI successfully proved the existence of these goods and that the costs were genuinely required for production and deductible from gross income. However, the Panel upheld the DGT's adjustments on travel and survey expenses, Land Clearance & Village Levies, licensing fees, operational costs, marketing costs, and entertainment expenses due to a lack of strong supporting evidence.
The implications of this ruling reaffirm that Transfer Pricing Documentation (TP Doc) is not a mere formality but a vital evidentiary tool in court. Taxpayers must be able to demonstrate, both narratively and quantitatively, why a comparable company is or is not suitable for use. Furthermore, supporting documents play a crucial role in winning tax disputes. For tax practitioners, this case sets a precedent that the Tax Court is willing to scrutinize the micro-aspects of every comparable company proposed by the DGT.
Comprehensive analysis and the Tax Court Ruling on this dispute are available here.
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id