Transfer pricing disputes frequently lead to the re-characterization of transactions, triggering double taxation through secondary adjustment mechanisms. In the case of PT MI, the tax authority implemented significant corrections on royalty payments to a Japanese affiliate, asserting that the transaction failed the Arm's Length Principle (ALP). The core of the conflict arose when the Respondent argued that PT MI, acting as a contract manufacturer, derived no economic benefit from paying royalties for trademarks and know-how on products exported back to the brand owner. Consequently, the tax authority invoked Article 18(3) of the Income Tax Law and PMK-22/2020 to re-characterize these royalties as constructive dividends, resulting in an Article 26 Income Tax withholding obligation at 20% (or the applicable Treaty rate).
The Petitioner strongly refuted these claims by presenting evidence of the actual utilization of production formulas (know-how) and the use of brand identity in its operations. The resolution of this dispute was determined by the Board of Judges, who took a balanced approach by referring to the related Corporate Income Tax decision.
The Judges concluded that the correction regarding know-how royalties could not be upheld as they provided tangible value to the production process, while the correction regarding trademark royalties was sustained. Implicatively, the secondary adjustment for Article 26 Income Tax only applied proportionally to the deemed unreasonable trademark royalty value. This case underscores that documenting the economic benefits (benefit test) for each intangible asset component is vital to prevent transaction re-characterization by tax authorities.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id