Tax authorities frequently utilize equalization techniques—matching data across various documents—as a primary instrument for correcting the Tax Base (DPP). In the dispute between PT GETI and the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT), the Respondent issued a VAT correction on the utilization of Intangible Taxable Goods/Services from Offshore (VAT JLN) amounting to IDR 17.3 billion, based solely on discrepancies between the General Ledger and Transfer Pricing Documentation (TP Doc). However, this case demonstrates that such indirect testing methods do not automatically possess sufficient evidentiary weight without verification of actual transaction flows within the relevant tax period.
The core of the conflict began when tax auditors identified cash outflows and service fee recognitions in the TP Doc that exceeded the amounts reported in the VAT Returns. The Respondent argued that any discrepancy found through equalization is presumed to be an uncollected tax object unless the Taxpayer can prove otherwise. Conversely, the Taxpayer presented a robust defense, providing evidence that the discrepancies included goods purchases (not services), transaction cancellations (credit memos), and timing differences in payments. The Taxpayer emphasized that equalization is merely an analytical tool, not competent evidence of actual service utilization in the December 2017 Tax Period.
The Board of Judges, in their legal consideration, established an important precedent regarding evidentiary standards. The Board stated that the equalization method is an "indirect test" that is merely indicative. In accordance with the principle of legal certainty and Article 1 number 7 of the KUP Law, corrections must be based on legal events occurring within the specific Tax Period under dispute. Upon examining the General Ledger details, the Board found that all transactions questioned by the Respondent actually occurred outside the December 2017 Tax Period. Consequently, the Respondent's correction was deemed to lack a legal basis and solid evidence, as it failed to link the equalization data to a tangible tax object in the relevant period.
The final resolution of this trial was the full cancellation of the Respondent's correction. The Board of Judges reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the accuracy of a correction lies with the tax authority. The implication of this ruling for Taxpayers is the vital importance of maintaining detailed reconciliations between documents (GL, TP Doc, and Tax Returns) and ensuring supporting evidence such as invoices and contracts are available to refute assumptions arising from equalization methods. This case serves as a reminder to tax authorities that the validity of a correction must rest on competent evidence, rather than a mere mathematical difference between documents.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id