Transfer Pricing Regulation - Updated in 2013

In 2013, Directorate General of Taxation has issued two TP Regulations which provide guidance as follows

a.DGT Regulation No. PER-22/PJ/2013 dated 30 May 2013 about tax audit procedures.  The regulation provides procedures on how to prepare and conduct audit including these issues:
-application of arm's length principle (ALP)
-identification of taxpayer's business
-how to choose TP Method

b. DGT Circular No. SE-50/PJ/2013 dated 24 October 2013 as a technical audit guide for transfer pricing, which is related to DGT Regulation No. PER-23/PJ/2013 dated 11 June 2013 on the tax audit standard. The circular gives a specific standard on how tax auditor should run their audit :
-Differentiation between special and routine audit
-The things that the tax auditor has to do for transfer pricing audit, since it is issued in relation to DGT Regulation about standard of tax audit which includes working papers and samples of items which have to be checked during audit.
-This circular revokes the previous circular, SE-04/PJ.7/1993.

Looking at the circular and the regulation, there might be several things needed for further clarification:
-Royalty payment is one of hottest topic for transfer pricing audit for both direct and indirect taxes and it deserves further and more detailed clarification
-Specific TP guidance for different issues for developing countries as noted in UN Practical Manual for Transfer Pricing are not specifically addressed in both regulations. It is interesting to see BRICS countries have responded to the report.
-Comparability issues for developing countries should be taken into account in Indonesia as also noted in UN Practical Manual.
-Should Indonesia pay more attention to Base Erosion and Profit Shifting which has drawn lots of attention from many countries? Transfer Pricing is obviously one of the issues in the report.

We also need to look at previous regulation to understand the issues of Transfer Pricing in here and here 

Catatan :
Peraturan Transfer Pricing terbaru di tahun 2013 merupakan satu kemajuan meski ada beberapa hal yang meski masalah topik panas yang khas Indonesia belum dijelaskan secara rinci

Transfer Pricing - Arm's Length Profit for Corporate Spin-off in Indonesia

A case of an automotive company brought to the Indonesian Tax Court has raised questions about the possibility to use arm's length principle for corporate spin-off or generally for business restructuring. In this case, tax authority has challenged the arm's length profit of a company after the spin-off of a certain business unit as part of the domestic business restructuring of the Indonesian company.

Facts

The company, let's call it A Corp., has been audited by Directorate General of Taxation (DGT) and during the audit the tax authority found that the company's profit after the spin-off has decreased with the following facts:

-a division was spun off from its previous company, X Corp, and became a separate entity, a new company, A Corp.

-After the new company, A Corp., was established, it was later found out that the X Corp's gross margin has decreased significantly and even if the gross margins of the A Corp and X Corp are combined, the overall gross margin is even still lower before the spin-off. 

-The tax authority challenged it and raised questions about the arm's length profit. Tax authority also believes that it might be due to royalty and non arm's length purchase price.

-DGT is of opinion that spin-off should not lower the gross margin before the spin-off. DGT compares A Corp.'s  gross margin  with competitor's gross margin and decides that A Corp.'s gross margin is lower. 

-A Corp has related party transactions with its related entity in Indonesia and other country.

-The transfer price, which is allegedly not arm's length, will be able to avoid higher indirect tax i.e. VAT. It is noted, based on the audit, that A Corp has sold its manufactured products to its related parties, in Indonesia and abroad, below the arm's length price to decrease the profit.

Having seen the facts above mentioned, we are likely to conclude that DGT is pursuing arm's length profit before and after the business restructuring.

After hearing process, the Tax Court has to decide on this case and after the decision is made, the taxpayer is still able to pursue judicial review from the Supreme Court.  

Comments

Looking at the facts, some questions need to be answered.  

Since domestic related party transactions also take place between related parties in Indonesia, does the domestic transfer pricing rule apply? Pursuant to DGT Regulation No. PER- 32/PJ/2011 about arm's length principle, it is stated on Art.2 that domestic transfer pricing rule applies on (i) certain business sector whose final and non final income tax is applied, (ii) sales tax on luxury goods, and (iii) production sharing contract for oil and gas.  Further, it is stated in the DGT Regulation No. PER-22/PJ/2013 about transfer pricing audit guide which states that domestic transactions could be used for profit shifting due to differences of tax rate between domestic companies.

The basis for transfer pricing rule is Art. 18(3) of Income Tax Law which mentions that DGT has the authority to re-determine the amount of incomes and reduction as well as to re-determine debts as capital to calculate the amount of taxable incomes for taxpayer possessing special relation with other taxpayer in accordance with equity and common practice of business that is not influenced by a special relation by means of price ratio method among independent party, re-sale price method, costs-plus method, or other methods. 

Also based on the elucidation, there is no wording which is likely to say that spin-off should be part of transfer pricing rule.

This off-the-beaten-path case reminds me of other case inIndia which has made many people wonder about the use of transfer pricing rule for share issuance.

The author has no information on how the Tax Court decided on this case but this story has been reported on a national daily newspaper last year. 

Belajar Transfer Pricing

Banyak orang yang belum paham Transfer Pricing, artikel berikut menjelaskan secara sederhana bagaimana satu perusahaan pisang melakukan Transfer Pricing.

Dari ilustrasi menarik ini kita dapat melihat bagaimana Transfer Pricing digunakan oleh perusahaan pisang di Inggris untuk menghindari pajak, penentuan harga dari pihak yang memiliki hubungan istimewa, royalty, trademark hingga intra –group services.

Berdasarkan sejarah, transfer pricing mulai dibuat dalam ketentuan perpajakan di Inggris yang digunakan untuk mengamankan penerimaan pajak, jadi penggambaran perusahaan pisang di atas bisa jadi satu gambaran nyata.

Dari gambaran perusahaan pisang tersebut, pemerintah, lewat Dirjen Pajak dapat menerapkan harga wajar atas harga beli, harga jual hingga pembayaran atas intra-group service.

Di Indonesia?

Mungkin kalau di Indonesia bisa digambarkan seperti telepon pintar yang diproduksi oleh perusahaan di Cina sana, namun barang dijual oleh perusahaan dagang berkedudukan di Hong Kong sedang server berlokasi di Amerika serta layanan pendukung seperti marketing dan customer service ada di Singapura. Selain itu holding company juga berada di beberapa negara, dari Belanda, Luxembourg hingga Swiss. Kepemilikan atas merek, teknologi dapat saja berada di beberapa negara yang menawarkan insentif pajak tertentu atau juga financial offshore center. Hal ini hanyalah contoh sederhana dari permasalahan transfer pricing.

Transfer Pricing di Indonesia dengan peraturan terbaru di 2010

Sejak 2010, Pemerintah mengeluarkan banyak peraturan Transfer Pricing yang akan banyak berdampak pada penerapan aturan pajak tentang Transfer Pricing di Indonesia.

Transfer Pricing yang disebut juga sebagai Transaksi dengan Hubungan Istimewa akhirnya memiliki dasar hukum dengan diterbitkannya Peraturan Dirjen Pajak No. 43/PJ/2010 tentang Penerapan Prinsip Kewajaran dan Kelaziman Usaha dalam Transaksi antara WP dengan Pihak yang mempunyai Hubungan Istimewa.

Dari peraturan tersebut ada beberapa yang dapat dicermati yakni PER 43 ini akan dipakai sebagai dasar hukum untuk melakukan koreksi dalam hal Transfer Pricing oleh Pemerintah atau Dirjen Pajak. PER 43 juga tidak terlepas dari S-153 yang menjelaskan tentang pedoman pemeriksaan atas Transfer Pricing.

Beberapa hal yang perlu dicermati diantaranya adalah :

1. Peraturan yang ada terbatas, tidak banyak perbedaan dengan OECD Guidelines sehingga tidak ada yang benar-benar baru namun hanya menegaskan.

2. Aturan tentang intangible property tidak diatur dengan jelas meskipun hal ini juga masih menjadi topik terbaru dari transfer pricing.

3. Tidak diatur tentang Transfer Pricing dalam hal PPN dan Bea Masuk

Pendokumentasian Transfer Pricing tidak diatur dalam hal format namun PER-43 menjelaskan hal apa saja yang harus didokumentasikan.

Semoga selanjutnya akan ada peraturan Transfer Pricing yang lebih baik dan lebih jelas tapi yang jelas akan makin sukar bagi perusahaan multinasional untuk memindahkan laba mereka ke negara lain terutama negara yang memiliki tarif pajak lebih rendah dari Indonesia.

MAP dan APA

Pasal 22 dari PER 43 menjelaskan tentang Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) sedang pasal 23 menjelaskan tentang Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) yang masing-masing dapat digunakan untuk menyelesaikan sengketa pajak dan menghindari permasalahan pajak dalam hal Transfer Pricing.

Belakangan, DJP menerbitkan Peraturan Dirjen Pajak No. PER-48/PJ/2010 tentang MAP dan Peraturan Dirjen Pajak No. PER-69/PJ/2010 tentang APA.

Efek peraturan Transfer Pricing terbaru ini sepertinya dapat kita lihat sejak tahun pajak 2010 ini yang beberapa bulan lagi harus dilaporkan.

Pedoman Pemeriksaan Transfer Pricing

Akhirnya Direktorat Jenderal Pajak mengeluarkan pedoman pemeriksaan atas Hubungan Istimewa (Transfer Pricing) yang akan menjadi pedoman bagi pemeriksa pajak dalam menjalankan pemeriksaan pajak dengan Surat Direktur Pemeriksaan dan Penagihan Nomor : S-153/PJ.04/2010 tanggal 31 Maret 2010

Ada beberapa hal yang dicermati dalam S-153 tersebut diantaranya :
- penerapan prinsip kewajaran (arm’s length principle)
- pemilihan pembanding (comparables)
- penerapan prinsip kewajaran dalam pemeriksaan pajak

Beberapa penerapan praktis diantaranya:
- klasifikasi perusahaan menurut KLU atau klasifikasi industri dalam penggunaan pembanding
- perbedaan kegiatan manufaktur dalam (i) manufaktur fungsi penuh, (ii) contract manufacturer dan (iii) toll manufacturer.
- perbedaan kegiatan distribusi kedalam (i) distributor fungsi penuh (ii) terbatas dan (iii) resiko – rendah – komisioner
- kewajaran penggunaan jasa atau intangible property dari pihak afiliasi (related party) seperti jasa manajemen dan royalty.
- penggunaan pertukaran informasi dengan treaty partner untuk pemeriksaan

Yang bisa menjadi pertanyaan adalah sejauh mana sosialisasi dari S-153 ini bagi aparat pajak? Selain itu kenapa hanya berupa surat dan tidak memberi penegasan berupa peraturan pajak yang lebih kuat seperti peraturan dirjen pajak?

Dokumentasi Transfer Pricing bagi Perusahaan

Mulai tahun pajak 2009, Wajib Pajak Badan diminta untuk melakukan dokumentasi Transfer Pricing. Hal ini didasarkan pada Peraturan Dirjen Pajak No. 39 /PJ/2009 tanggal 2 Juli 2009 tentang SPT Tahunan PPh WP Badan beserta Petunjuk Pengisiannya
Dalam Lampiran Khusus 3A-1 sesuai PER 39 tersebut diantaranya diminta :
- Dokumentasi Penetapan Harga Wajar Transaksi
- Gambaran Transaksi
- Catatan Penentuan Harga Wajar termasuk data pembanding dan metodologi

Sepertinya hal inilah yang akan menjadi dasar pemeriksaan transfer pricing di masa mendatang

Transfer Pricing in Indonesia after 2008

In the latest amendment of Income Tax Law this year, eventually the government, as we could see in article 18, acknowledges transfer pricing methods: (i)comparable uncontrolled price method, (ii)resale price method), (iii)cost plus method, (iv)profit split method, and (v)transactional net margin method. Previously, these methods were mentioned in ‘outdated’ circular letter that predates the Income Tax Law 1994 and it could also be questioned since circular letter is binding merely for the tax authority.

The amendment also explains the Advance Pricing Arrangement, purchase through special purpose company (SPV), and the use of conduit company. Nevertheless, further details would be regulated by a decree of Finance Minister. It should be noted that a decree might need review and receive feedback before it could be applicable for the taxpayers. Furthermore, we need to see whether the government, after the amendment, would be more strict in transfer pricing practice for multinational companies since the transfer pricing practice in Indonesia is commonly accused as a means for transferring profit to low tax jurisdiction out of Indonesia