The transfer pricing dispute between PT ITP and the tax authorities stemmed from a sharp divergence in the methodology used to test the fairness of operating profits under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Respondent (Tax Office) imposed a significant correction on ITP’s profit, citing that the company’s actual Net Cost Plus Margin (NCPM) fell below the interquartile range of comparables established in the transfer pricing documentation. The core of the conflict lay in the aggregate approach utilized by the Respondent, where all company transactions—both affiliated (export) and independent (local)—were tested simultaneously without adequate segmentation.
PT ITP countered strongly, arguing that their affiliated transactions accounted for only 3.95% of total sales, making it irrelevant to correct the entire entity's profit based on the dominant performance of third-party transactions. Furthermore, ITP argued that the profit decline was triggered by external factors such as USD/JPY exchange rate volatility and suboptimal machine capacity utilization (64.45%) due to market conditions, rather than non-arm's length pricing.
In its legal consideration, the Board of Judges emphasized that the aggregate approach used by the Respondent was biased and imprecise. Under the arm's length principle, testing should focus on transactions influenced by special relationships. Given the very small portion of affiliated transactions, the Board held that the overall profit performance was more heavily influenced by independent transactions; thus, the transfer pricing correction lacked a solid basis. Consequently, the Board overturned the entire transfer pricing correction, setting an important precedent regarding the necessity of financial data segmentation in transfer pricing audits.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here