Author: Courts of Indonesia

Indonesia vs P.T. Sanken Indonesia Ltd., December 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 5291/B/PK/PJK/2020

Indonesia vs P.T. Sanken Indonesia Ltd., December 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 5291/B/PK/PJK/2020
P.T. Sanken Indonesia Ltd. – an Indonesian subsidiary of Sanken Electric Co., Ltd. Japan – paid royalties to its Japanese parent for use of IP. The royalty payment was calculated based on external sales and therefore did not include sales of products to group companies. The royalty payments were deducted for tax purposes. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for the royalty payments were denied. According to the authorities the license agreement had not been registrered in Indonesia. Furthermore, the royalty payment was found not to have been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. P.T. Sanken issued a complaint over the decision with the Tax Court, where the assessment later was set aside. This decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the ... Read more

Indonesia vs PT Tech Data Advanced Solutions Indonesia, November 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2747/B/PK/Pjk/2021

Indonesia vs PT Tech Data Advanced Solutions Indonesia, November 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2747/B/PK/Pjk/2021
PT Tech Data Advanced Solutions Indonesia (formerly PT AVnet Datamation Solutions) had paid service fees to a related party in FY 2013. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where these service fees, among other issues, was found to be unsubstantiated by the evidence provided by the company. The Company disagreed and brought the case to court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Tax authorities. Excerpts. “That the reasons for the Appellant’s request for reconsideration cannot be justified, because the decision of the Tax Court which partially granted the Appellant’s appeal against the Appellant’s Decision Number KEP-01458/KEB/WPJ.07/2017, dated 5 September 2017, concerning Taxpayer’s Objection to the Tax Assessment Letter for Underpayment of Income Tax for the Tax Year 2013, Number 00005/206/13/056/16, dated 8 June 2016, in the name of the Appellant, NPWP 21.120.445.8- 056.000, so that ... Read more

Indonesia vs PT AVnet Datamation Solutions, November 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2748/B/PK/Pjk/2021

Indonesia vs PT AVnet Datamation Solutions, November 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2748/B/PK/Pjk/2021
PT Tech Data Advanced Solutions Indonesia (formerly PT AVnet Datamation Solutions) had paid service fees to a related party in FY 2014. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where these service fees, among other issues, was found to be unsubstantiated by the evidence provided by the company. The Company disagreed and brought the case to court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the assessment of the tax authorities. Excerpts “That the reasons for the Appellant’s request for reconsideration cannot be justified, because the decision of the Tax Court which states that it partially grants the Appellant’s appeal against the Decision of the Director General of Taxes Number KEP-01460/KEB/WPJ.07/2017, dated 5 September 2017, concerning the Taxpayer’s Objection to the Income Tax Underpayment Assessment Letter for Tax Year 2014 Number 00013/206/14/056/16, dated 8 June 2016, in the name of the Appellant, ... Read more

Indonesia vs PT Mondelez Indonesia, July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2031/B/PK/PJK/2021

Indonesia vs PT Mondelez Indonesia, July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 2031/B/PK/PJK/2021
Following an audit of PT Mondelez Indonesia, the tax authorities issued an assessment where certain controlled transactions had been adjusted resulting in additional taxable income. A complaint was filed with the Tax Court where, in a decision issued 26 October 2021 the Court partially set aside the assessment. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Court by the tax authorities. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and ruled in favor of Mondelez. Excerpts: “Considering, that to the reasons for the review, the Supreme Court is of the opinion: – That the subject matter of the dispute is: Positive Correction of Net Income for Tax Year 2015 amounting to Rp112,491,138,518.00 consisting of: correction of Cost of Goods Sold amounting to Rp23,083,520,411.00, and Income from Outside Business amounting to Rp67,781,379.345.00 derived from deemed income on marketing expense ... Read more

Indonesia vs PT Hino Motors Manufacturing Indonesia, July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 1806 B/PK/PJK/2021

Indonesia vs PT Hino Motors Manufacturing Indonesia, July 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 1806 B/PK/PJK/2021
PT Hino Motors Manufacturing Indonesia is a subsidiary of a Chinese Group in the automotive industry. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment for FY 2015 where the benchmark that had been used to determine the income of PT Hino Motors was dismissed and replaced with another. According to the tax authorities Hino Motors had not been subjected to the same economic conditions as the comparables in benchmark provided by the company The Company disagreed and brought the case to the Tax Court where, in a decision issued 11 November 2020, the court set aside the assessment. An appeal was then filed by the tax authorities with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PT Hino Motors and upheld the decision of the Tax Court to set aside the assessment. Excerpts “(…) – That the ... Read more

Indonesia vs PT PK Manufacturing Indonesia, March 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 131/B/PK/Pjk/2021

Indonesia vs PT PK Manufacturing Indonesia, March 2021, Supreme Court, Case No. 131/B/PK/Pjk/2021
PT PK manufacturing Ltd was a contract manufacturer of cabins for excavators for the Japanese parent, Press Kogyo Co. Ltd. Japan, and paid royalties for “use of IP”. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for royalty payments were disallowed due to lack of documentation for ownership to said IP. Furthermore, the tax authorities did not see any economic benefit for the contract manufacturer in paying the royalties, as it had been continuously loss making. The Company disagreed and brought the case to court. The Tax Court ruled in favor of the tax authorities. According to a decision issued 4 December 2019 the existence and ownership to the Intellectual Property in question had not been sufficiently documented. An request for review was then filed with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the request and upheld ... Read more

Indonesia vs PT Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd, December 2020 Supreme Court, Case No. 4446/B/PK/Pjk/2020

Indonesia vs PT Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd, December 2020 Supreme Court, Case No. 4446/B/PK/Pjk/2020
PT Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd reported losses for FY 2013. The tax authorities issued an assessment where the income of the company was increased by a substantial amount referring to applicable transfer pricing regulations. Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd filed a complaint with the Tax Court, but the Tax Court upheld the assessment. An application for judicial review was then filed with the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd. The Tax Court had erred in assessing facts, data, evidence and application of the law. The decision of the Tax Court was canceled and the petition for judicial review was granted. Losses reported by Nanindah Mutiara Shipyard Ltd were not due to non-arm’s length pricing, but rather exceptional circumstances that occurred at the local company in the years following 2010. Excerpts: ” … a. that the reasons ... Read more

Indonesia vs PK manufacturing Ltd, March 2020 Supreme Court, Case No. 366/B/PK/Pjk/2020

Indonesia vs PK manufacturing Ltd, March 2020 Supreme Court, Case No. 366/B/PK/Pjk/2020
PK manufacturing Ltd was a contract manufacturer of cabins for excavators for the Japanese parent and paid royalties for use of IP owned by the parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for royalty payments were disallowed due to lack of documentation for ownership to Intellectual Property by the Japanese parent. Furthermore, the tax authorities did not see any economic benefit for the contract manufacturer in paying the royalties, as it had been continuously loss making. The Company disagreed and brought the case to court. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Existence and ownership to the Intellectual Property in question had not been sufficiently documented by the Japanese parent company. The Supreme Court dismissed the request for review filed by PK Co. Ltd. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs PK manufacturing Ltd, January 2019 Court of Appeal, Case No. PUT-115599.15/2014/PP/M.XIIIB Tahun 2019

Indonesia vs PK manufacturing Ltd, January 2019 Court of Appeal, Case No. PUT-115599.15/2014/PP/M.XIIIB Tahun 2019
PK manufacturing Ltd was a contract manufacturer of cabins for excavators for the Japanese parent and paid royalties for use of IP owned by the parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where deductions for royalty payments were disallowed due to lack of documentation for ownership to Intellectual Property by the Japanese parent. Furthermore, the tax authorities did not see any economic benefit for the contract manufacturer in paying the royalties, as it had been continuously loss making. The Company disagreed and brought the case to court. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the tax authorities. Existence and ownership to the Intellectual Property in question had not been sufficiently documented by the Japanese parent company. Part 1 – Click here for translation Part 2 – Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs ARPTe Ltd, January 2019, Tax Court, Case No. PUT-108755.15/2013/PP/M.XVIIIA

Indonesia vs ARPTe Ltd, January 2019, Tax Court, Case No. PUT-108755.15/2013/PP/M.XVIIIA
ARPTe Ltd had paid a subsidiary for management services and use of intangibles. The benefit of those payments were challenged by the tax authorities and an assessment was issued where these deductions had been denied. An appeal was filed with the tax court Judgement of the Tax Court The Court set aside the assessment of the tax authorities and decided in favor of ARPTe Ltd. According to the Court ARPTe Ltd had been able to provide sufficient evidence that the management services and intangibles provided by the subsidiary had actually benefited the company. “ Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs Cussons Indonesia, June 2017, Supreme Court, Nomor 907/B/PK/PJK/2017

Indonesia vs Cussons Indonesia, June 2017, Supreme Court, Nomor 907/B/PK/PJK/2017
The tax authorities had disallowed royalty payments of 3% of net sales from Cussons Indonesia to its parent company in the UK, PZ Cussons International Ltd. According to the tax authorities Cussons had been unable to prove that the transaction was at arm’s-length, as well as unable to provide transfer pricing documentation. Cussons claimed that the royalty payments was supported with documents such as royalty agreement, VAT payment, and withholding tax on royalty. Cussons further argued that sales in Indonesia were positively influenced by Cusson’s trademark. Following a tax court decision (Put.53966/2014) in favour of Cussons, the tax authorities brought an appeal to the Supreme Court. Judgement of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the tax authorities and upheld the decision in favour of Cussons. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs “Indonesia Ltd”, April 2016 Supreme Court, Case No. Put-70118/PP/M.IA/15/2016

Indonesia vs "Indonesia Ltd", April 2016 Supreme Court, Case No. Put-70118/PP/M.IA/15/2016
In this case “Indonesia Ltd” paid royalties for use of IP owned by the Japanese parent. Following an audit, the tax authorities issued an assessment where the royalty payments were disallowed. Judgement of the Court The Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer. According to the court “Indonesia Ltd” had been able to prove that services had actually been rendered. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs P.T. Sanken Electric Indonesia Ltd, February 2016, Tax Court, Case No. Put.68357/PP/M.IA/15/2016

Indonesia vs P.T. Sanken Electric Indonesia Ltd, February 2016, Tax Court, Case No. Put.68357/PP/M.IA/15/2016
P.T. Sanken Electric Indonesia Ltd. – an Indonesian subsidiary of Sanken Electric Co., Ltd. Japan – paid royalties to its Japanese parent for use of IP. The royalty payment was calculated based on external sales and therefore did not include sales of products to group companies. The royalty payments were deducted for tax purposes. The tax authorities denied the deduction as the license agreement had not been registrered in Indonesia. Furthermore, the royalty payment was not found to have been determined in accordance with the arm’s length principle. P.T. Sanken Electric Indonesia Ltd appealed the decision of the Tax Court. Judgement of the Tax Court The tax court set aside the assessment and decided in favor of taxpayer. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs SK Group Indonesia, October 2014, Tax Court, Put.56237/2014

Indonesia vs SK Group Indonesia, October 2014, Tax Court, Put.56237/2014
At issue in the case of SK Group Indonesia was sale of lube base oil to SK Energy International (Singapore). The transfer price had been determined by the group using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). An adjustment was issued by tax authorities claiming that the controlled transactions had been underpriced. This was concluded based on the comparable Uncontrolled Price method (CUP). Judgement of the Tax Court The Court decided in favour of SK Group. According to the court the tax authorities had not been able to sufficiently prove that the CUP method was a more appropriate method. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs Cussons Indonesia, July 2014, Tax Court, Put.53966/2014

Indonesia vs Cussons Indonesia, July 2014, Tax Court, Put.53966/2014
The tax authorities had disallowed royalty payments of 3% of net sales from Cussons Indonesia to its parent company in the UK, PZ Cussons International Ltd. According to the tax authorities Cussons had been unable to prove that the payment was at arm’s-length, as well as unable to provide transfer pricing documentation supporting the pricing. Cussons claimed that the royalty payments was supported with documents such as a royalty agreement, documentation for VAT payments, and withholding tax on royalty. Judgement of the Tax Court The court decided in favour of Cussons and set aside the assessment of the tax authorities Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs Roche Indonesia, February 2014, Tax Court, Put.53966/2014

Indonesia vs Roche Indonesia, February 2014, Tax Court, Put.53966/2014
In the case of Roche Indonesia the tax authorities had disallowed deductions for royalties paid by the local company to F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Deductions for marketing and and Promotions costs paid by the local company had also been disallowed. Judgement of the Tax Court The court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. Roche Indonesia had been unable to prove the value, existence and ultimate owner of intangible assets for which the royalty was paid. In regards to the disallowed deductions of cost related to marketing and and promotions half of the costs were allowed and the other half disallowed. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia, December 2013, Tax Court, Put.49339/2013

Indonesia vs Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia, December 2013, Tax Court, Put.49339/2013
In the case of Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia the tax authorities had disallowed deductions for royalties paid by the local company to the Japanese Sharp Corporation. Judgement of the Tax Court The court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. According to the court Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia had not been able to prove the existence of know-how, the existence of training provided, the value of intangible property owned by Sharp Corporation. Moreover, Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia only sells its product to related parties and royalty fees are first relevant once the product is sold to independent parties. Finally Sharp Semiconductor Indonesia was not able to prove the economic benefit it had received from the trademark “Sharp”. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs Panasonic Indonesia, May 2013, Tax Court, Put.45162/2013

Indonesia vs Panasonic Indonesia, May 2013, Tax Court, Put.45162/2013
In the case of Panasonic Indonesia the tax authorities had disallowed deductions for services and royalties paid for by the local company to the Panasonic Corporation Japan. The tax authorities held that Panasonic Indonesia did not received the purported services and that the company should not pay royalty due to its status as a contracting manufacturer. Judgement of the Tax Court The Court decided predominantly in favour of the tax authorities. The court found that Panasonic Indonesia had been unable to prove that actual ‘services’ had been received for an amount equal to 3% of net sales of all product manufactured and 1% of net sales for technical assistance and brand fees. Furthermore it was notet that Panasonic Indonesia reported consistent losses. Click here for translation ... Read more

Indonesia vs “Asian Agri Group”, December 2012, Supreme Court, Case No. 2239 K/PID.SUS/2012

Indonesia vs "Asian Agri Group", December 2012, Supreme Court, Case No. 2239 K/PID.SUS/2012
This case is about extensive tax evasion set up by the tax manager of the Asian Agri Group. According to the tax authorities income from export sales had been manipulated. Products were sent directly to the end buyer, whereas the invoices recorded that the products were first sold to companies in Hong Kong and then sold to a company in Macau or the British Virgin Islands before they were finally sold to the end buyer. The intermediary companies were proven to have been used only for the purpose of lowering the taxable income by under-invoicing the sales prices compared to the sales price to the end buyer. Various fees had also been deducted from the companies income to further lower the tax payment. These included a “Jakarta fee”, a Hedging fee and a Management fee. Judgement of the Supreme Court The court ruled that the ... Read more