Tax authorities frequently utilize the cost equalization method between the Income Statement and the Article 23 Income Tax Returns to verify withholding tax compliance. In the case of PT AWS, the Respondent made corrections to the UM Field Transport, HC Harvesting Tools, and HC Transport-Internal accounts based on the assumption that there were services provided by third parties constituting Article 23 objects. However, the regulatory wording in Article 23 paragraph (1) letter c number 2 of the Income Tax Law requires consideration for services. Trial facts revealed that the costs in these accounts were for internal material and equipment usage, not third-party services.
The core of the conflict lies in the Respondent's interpretation of General Ledger entries as service fees. The Petitioner countered this by presenting evidence that the transactions were for purchasing goods/spare parts and using self-owned assets. In its consideration, the Board of Judges emphasized that this is an evidentiary dispute. Based on invoices and goods receipt notes, the Board concluded that the Respondent's correction was not supported by strong evidence, as the transactions were proven to be material purchases and internal resource usage, which are not Article 23 objects under PMK 141/PMK.03/2015.
The implication of this decision underscores the importance of accurate account classification in the General Ledger and the availability of supporting documents such as Purchase Orders and Goods Receipt Notes. This ruling serves as a precedent that equalization methods cannot stand alone without being supported by evidence of transaction substance (substance over form). For Taxpayers, a clear separation between material costs and service costs in accounting records is a crucial preventive step to avoid similar corrections in the future.