The interest compensation dispute between PT PCI and the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) has triggered a legal debate regarding the principle of retroactivity and the effectiveness of benchmark interest rates post-Omnibus Law. The conflict originated when the Plaintiff demanded a 2% monthly interest compensation based on the old Article 27A of the KUP Law for overpaid VAT in December 2017, following a successful Appeal. However, the Defendant (DGT) only granted compensation at a rate of 0.57% per month, citing Article 27B of the KUP Law introduced via the Omnibus Law.
The Plaintiff argued that since the tax object occurred in 2017, the applicable law should be the regulation in force during that tax period. Conversely, the DGT emphasized that the granting of interest compensation is not based on the tax period, but rather on the timing of the legal event—the pronouncement of the Appeal Decision. Since the Appeal Decision was pronounced in June 2023 (after the Omnibus Law took effect), the applicable rate must be the current benchmark interest rate.
The Tax Court Judges, in their legal consideration, agreed with the Defendant. The Judges clarified that Article 27A of the KUP Law was repealed and replaced by Article 27B as of November 2, 2020. According to Article 111 of PMK-18/2021, disputes where decisions are pronounced after the Omnibus Law's enactment must utilize the new rate formula. The Court held that legal certainty requires the application of rules in force at the time the right to interest compensation legally arises.
This decision confirms that Taxpayers can no longer enjoy the 2% fixed interest rate for decisions rendered in the post-Omnibus Law era, even if the underlying dispute relates to older tax years. This necessitates that Taxpayers be more precise in projecting the recovery costs of a tax dispute, given that interest compensation is now highly volatile, following market rates and generally trending lower than previous regulations.
Corporate Finance Strategy Note: This landmark ruling permanently shifts the landscape for long-term tax litigation risk planning. Companies can no longer treat old pending court cases as assets generating a steady, high-yielding 2% monthly return. When forecasting dispute recovery cash flows, financial executives must discard static calculations and actively track monthly Ministry of Finance benchmark decrees.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id