The issue of determining the Tax Base for Income Tax Article 26 (PPh Article 26) on payments to Foreign Taxpayers (WPLN) is often the subject of tax disputes, especially concerning the separation between the gross income element and cost reimbursement. In the context of PPh Article 26 correction, this dispute centers on the claim by the domestic Taxpayer (WP) that the payment is not a tax object, a claim rejected by the Director General of Taxes (DJP) as it is deemed to be a service fee or rental income. Tax Court Decision Number PUT-002803.13/2024/PP/M.XIB Tahun 2025, involving PT AJS and a Singaporean WPLN, becomes a crucial case study on the strict evidential criteria required to classify a cost reimbursement transaction as non-taxable income.
The Core Conflict in this case is the correction of the PPh Article 26 Tax Base amounting to Rp6.3 billion made by the DJP against PT AJS. The DJP argued that the entire payment to the WPLN was a PPh Article 26 object, classified as Ship Rental (charter bareboat) and Service Fees. The DJP rejected the reimbursement argument submitted by the WP because the formal requirement—that third-party invoices must be issued in the name of the WP—was not met. Meanwhile, the Petitioner (WP) insisted that the payment was merely a reimbursement of expenses (purchase of parts, crew quarantine costs, etc.) which constitutes non-taxable revenue for the WPLN. The WP also claimed its right to apply the Permanent Establishment (PE) provisions under the Indonesia-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The absence of a WPLN Domicile Certificate (SKD) was the main impediment for the WP to claim the protection of the DTAA, leading the DJP to maintain the PPh Article 26 rate of 20% on the gross amount.
The Tax Court Judges reached a resolution by adopting a selective legal principle of evidence. The Panel ruled that the correction on the Reimbursements of expenses for May 2020 related to the purchase of spare parts and warehouse issues, totaling Rp6.29 billion, was canceled because the Judges were convinced that the payment was substantially a cost reimbursement that was advanced and contained no profit element. In other words, the documents presented by the WP were sufficiently convincing that the transaction did not constitute gross income for the WPLN. Conversely, the Panel upheld the correction on Crew Quarantine Costs, Ship Rental (charter bareboat), and Rig Inspection Services, totaling Rp11.7 billion, as these items were clearly classified as rental and service fees subject to PPh Article 26.
The Analysis and Impact of this decision significantly affect international tax compliance practice. The ruling affirms that to separate a reimbursement from the Tax Base, the WP must focus on the substantive evidence of the transaction (lack of a profit element) and present credible documentation, even if the DJP's strict formality requirement regarding the name on the third-party invoice may be set aside by the Panel if the substance is met. However, another equally important implication is the confirmation that the absence of the WPLN SKD will absolutely negate the WP's right to claim DTAA benefits (including the PE status argument), thereby mandating the application of the domestic PPh Article 26 rate of 20%.
The Conclusion is that success in a PPh Article 26 dispute over reimbursement highly depends on the quality of evidence presented in court. Taxpayers must clearly separate in their contracts and accounting between costs with a profit element (taxable PPh) and pure reimbursement costs, and they must never overlook the formal obligation to complete the SKD for all cross-border transactions to secure their legal position in applying the DTAA.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id