The recognition of foreign net income through a deemed dividend scheme became a central issue in the Corporate Income Tax audit of PT R for the 2017 Tax Year. The Respondent (Tax Authority) imposed an adjustment of IDR 5,358,205,651 regarding share ownership in S&S, PTE. LTD, Singapore, arguing that the Petitioner exercised direct control over the entity pursuant to Article 18, paragraph (2) of the Income Tax Law. The Respondent maintained that dividends must be recognized when due or deemed, regardless of actual distribution.
In response, the Petitioner strongly countered using arguments rooted in the Tax Amnesty Law. The Petitioner proved that the share ownership had been disclosed in the Asset Declaration Letter (SPH) as part of the Tax Amnesty program. Legally, although the shares were registered under a nominee, the economic substance was recognized as belonging to the Petitioner. The Petitioner emphasized that under Article 15 of the Tax Amnesty Law, data reported in the SPH cannot serve as a basis for investigation or criminal prosecution, providing legal certainty regarding the asset's status.
The Board of Judges focused on the validity of the SPH evidence and the Petitioner’s administrative compliance. The Board opined that since the assets were declared under Tax Amnesty, their tax treatment must align with the specific regulations governing the amnesty. The Respondent's unilateral deemed dividend assessment was deemed to ignore the legal fact that control and ownership had been acknowledged by the state through the SPH mechanism. Consequently, the Board ruled to cancel the adjustment as the element of strong control post-declaration was not proven.
This decision reinforces that Tax Amnesty data protection is absolute in shielding Taxpayers from adjustments derived from declared assets. For tax practitioners, the crucial implication is the synchronization between Annual Tax Returns and SPH documents to avoid dual interpretations by tax authorities regarding foreign-sourced income.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here