Tens of Billions in BPHTB Corrections Rejected: Is the Minimum NPOP for Plantation Land PBB NJOP?

The Tax Court Decision Number PUT-005048.32/2023/PP/M.XVA Tahun 2025 serves as a crucial confirmation regarding the application of the Nilai Perolehan Objek Pajak (NPOP) or Tax Object Acquisition Value as the basis for the Bea Perolehan Hak atas Tanah dan Bangunan (BPHTB) (Land and Building Acquisition Tax) in the context of acquiring a new Hak Guna Usaha (HGU) (Cultivation Rights Title). This case highlights how the provisions of Article 87 paragraph (3) of Law Number 28 Year 2009 concerning Regional Taxes and Regional Levies (PDRD Law) are strictly enforced by local tax authorities. The core of the case involves the objection filed by PT JAR (the Appellant) against the BPHTB NPOP correction raised by the Terbanding (Respondent/Regent of Kotabaru), which significantly inflated the tax payable.

Main Conflict: Determination of NPOP Value

The main conflict stemmed from determining the NPOP value for the new HGU acquisition. The Appellant unilaterally determined the NPOP at Rp1,000.00 per square meter, arguing that the object was land resulting from the release of forest areas that was not yet fully productive, thus its fair value was low. However, the Respondent relied on the Nilai Jual Objek Pajak (NJOP) (Tax Object Sale Value) for the Land and Building Tax for the Plantation Sector (PBB-P3) from 2020, which was set by the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) at Rp9,830.00 per square meter. The Respondent rigorously applied the PDRD Law stipulating that if the NPOP declared by the Taxpayer is lower than the PBB NJOP, the Tax Assessment Basis must mandatorily use the PBB NJOP. This difference in valuation triggered a BPHTB Payable correction amounting to tens of billions of Rupiah.

Legal Considerations of the Panel

In its legal considerations, the Tax Court Judges Panel emphasized two key points. First, the Panel upheld the Respondent's action of using the PBB-P3 NJOP as the NPOP because it is a normative obligation stipulated in Article 87 paragraph (3) of the PDRD Law. Since the NPOP reported by the Appellant was lower than the PBB NJOP for the year of acquisition, the PBB NJOP was deemed the legally valid minimum value. Second, the Panel explicitly rejected the Appellant's argument concerning the unreasonableness of the PBB-P3 NJOP. The Panel ruled that a dispute over the value or validity of the PBB NJOP is a Central Tax (PBB) dispute under the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT), not a BPHTB (Regional Tax) dispute before the Regent of Kotabaru. Therefore, the dispute was submitted to the wrong forum. The Panel also clarified that the moment BPHTB becomes due is the date of the rights granting decision, not the administrative deadline for certificate registration.

Significant Implications for Tax Practice

The implications of this decision are highly significant for tax practice, especially for taxpayers acquiring land and building rights at low values (e.g., from rights conversion or release of forest areas). The decision affirms the clear separation of dispute jurisdiction between Central Tax (PBB/NJOP) and Regional Tax (BPHTB/NPOP). Taxpayers who object to the PBB NJOP value must first pursue the PBB objection process with the DGT. If the dispute is solely submitted to the BPHTB authority, the Respondent's legal basis for using the PBB NJOP as the minimum NPOP value will be difficult to challenge, making the regional tax correction almost certain to be sustained. This ruling serves as a reminder for all taxpayers to perform due diligence on the applicable PBB NJOP before depositing BPHTB funds to mitigate the risk of underpayment and administrative sanctions.

A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here