The issuance of a Tax Court Decision that cancels an Underpaid Tax Assessment Letter (SKPKB) does not automatically guarantee the Taxpayer’s (WP) right to compensation in the form of Interest Compensation (IB), especially under the tax regime following the enactment of the Harmonization of Tax Regulations Law (UU HPP). The case involving PT FEI sharply highlights how the restrictive provisions in Article 27B of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (UU KUP) and Minister of Finance Regulation Number 18/PMK.03/2021 (PMK 18-2021) can negate the right to compensation, even when a tax overpayment arising from the SKPKB cancellation is legally proven. The core of the dispute is PT FEI’s lawsuit against the Director General of Taxes’ (DJP) Letter of Interest Compensation Denial (Notice of SKPIB Not Issued).
The central conflict in this dispute stems from differing interpretations regarding the conditions that create the right to interest compensation. PT FEI, as the Plaintiff, argued that a decision cancelling the SKPKB logically resulted in a tax overpayment (US$ 374,982.82) that should be entitled to IB as compensation for the funds withheld. The Plaintiff referred to earlier provisions deemed more accommodating. Conversely, the Defendant (DJP) maintained the denial by adhering to the provisions of Article 27B paragraph (2) of the UU KUP, which stipulates that IB is granted only up to the amount of overpayment agreed upon by the Taxpayer in the Final Discussion of Audit Results (PAHP) for a return that states an overpayment. In fact, PT FEI’s Corporate Income Tax return for the 2007 Tax Year was Nihil (zero-liability). Furthermore, the Defendant was strengthened by Article 83 paragraph (5) of PMK 18-2021, which explicitly excludes tax overpayments arising from payments made on an SKPKB that is subsequently cancelled by a court decision.
The resolution of the dispute was determined by the Tax Court Panel, which rejected PT FEI's lawsuit. The Panel’s legal opinion definitively affirmed the principle of lex temporis, ruling that the applicable regulation is the latest one (UU HPP and PMK 18-2021), as the legal event giving rise to the overpayment occurred when the lawsuit decision was issued in 2024. The Panel agreed with the Defendant’s argument that the lack of agreed overpayment in the PAHP and the Nihil status of the tax return, coupled with the explicit exclusion for payments originating from SKPKB, made the DJP’s refusal to issue the SKPIB valid and compliant with the prevailing tax laws and regulations.
A deep analysis of this decision reveals that the Indonesian tax regulations have significantly restricted the scope for Taxpayers to obtain interest compensation in cases of overpayments resulting from compulsory payments or initial assessments. The implication of this decision is substantial: Taxpayers who choose to pay an SKPKB upfront to avoid penalties, but subsequently win the dispute and receive their overpayment back, effectively lose the right to interest compensation on the funds withheld during the dispute period. This may set a precedent encouraging Taxpayers to be more cautious in their payment decisions during the audit/objection stage, and strengthens the DJP’s position in interpreting the restrictions on interest compensation.
The conclusion from this case study is that even though a Tax Court Decision is final, binding, and favors the Taxpayer, the mechanism for granting interest compensation post-UU HPP has become a formality bottleneck. Taxpayers must understand that meeting the substantive requirements of a court decision is no longer sufficient; adherence to the formal requirements in derivative regulations, particularly PMK 18-2021 regarding the origin of the overpayment, is now the sole determinant of the right to interest compensation.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id