Why Equalization Is Not Absolute: Lessons from PT OBM's Article 23 Withholding Tax Dispute

Tax Court Appeal Decision | Income Tax Article 23 (Non-Final) Partially Granted

PUT-009440.12/2023/PP/M.XIVA

Taxindo Prime Consulting
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 | 14:40 WIB

00:00

Optimized with Google Chrome

Why Equalization Is Not Absolute: Lessons from PT OBM's Article 23 Withholding Tax Dispute

Tax Dispute Analysis: PT Oremus Bahari Mandiri

Under Article 12 paragraph (3) of the KUP Law, the Director General of Taxes is authorized to determine the amount of tax due through an audit if incorrect data is identified. In the dispute involving PT Oremus Bahari Mandiri (OBM), the Respondent applied an equalization technique between the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) in the Financial Statements and the Article 23 Income Tax Base to verify compliance with service tax withholding.

Case Background and Respondent's Audit Approach

PT OBM, a shipping agency service provider, faced significant corrections regarding Article 23 Income Tax for the February 2018 period. The Respondent attempted to synchronize data layers through two distinct evaluation methods:

Correction Target	Value	Ruling Status	Legal Rationale
COGS Equalization	IDR 1,211,810,460	UPHELD	The Petitioner failed to present subsidiary ledgers and source payment vouchers to prove non-taxable status.
Suspense Accounts	IDR 915,729,427	CANCELLED	The Respondent failed to prove any actual cash flows or transaction logs, making the correction purely presumptive.

The Panel of Judges' Consideration

The Panel of Judges provided a balanced consideration in deciding this case. While the lack of transactional evidence validated the COGS audit adjustments, the adjustments to suspense accounts violated evidentiary standards. The Panel ruled that although tax authorities have the power to perform equalization, the results cannot automatically serve as a basis for correction without identifying specific service types. Corrections must strictly adhere to the objectivity of evidence required under Article 12 paragraph (3) of the KUP Law.

Tax Due = Applicable Rate × Gross Service Remuneration Amount

Equalization is an testing mechanism, not an absolute tax object determinant.

Legal Implications and Lessons Learned

This decision carries crucial structural implications for corporate accounting compliance and tax litigation management:

Source Documents Precedence: Relying on verbal or logical descriptions is insufficient. Subsidiary ledgers, debt trackers, and bank receipts must be ready to break formalistic cost equalization models.
Proactive Reconciliations: Corporate tax functions should perform periodic internal checks between ledger expense accounts and monthly withholding returns to catch discrepancies before an official audit.
Presumptive Defenses: Taxpayers possess a strong legal footing to overturn corrections levied against clearing or perantara accounts if the tax authority cannot demonstrate a real economic event.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the weight of evidence in equalization disputes lies in the granularity of cost details. Maintaining deep data traceability provides corporate operations with their primary defensive layer in front of the Tax Court.

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