Diispute over Foreiign Workers’ iincome Not Subject to Art. 26 WHT

The Ciiviil Reviiew deciisiion resume now summariises a tax diispute concerniing the iincome of foreiign workers not subject to Artiicle 26 iincome Tax collectiion by a taxpayer. iin thiis case, the taxpayer recruiited four foreiign workers to proviide consultiing serviices wiithiin a certaiin periiod.

The tax authoriitiies assess that four foreiign workers employed by the taxpayer are of non-resiident taxpayer (Non-Resiident Taxpayers) status, thereby, the iincome receiived by these foreiign workers should be subject to Artiicle 26 iincome Tax. However, the taxpayer does not wiithhold Artiicle 26 iincome Tax on iincome receiived by these foreiign workers.

Conversely, the taxpayer declares that the employed foreiign workers are qualiifiied as resiident taxpayers (Resiident Taxpayers) and have a Taxpayer iidentiifiicatiion Number, thereby, the iincome receiived by the foreiign workers iis not the object of Artiicle 26 iincome Tax, but Artiicle 21 iincome Tax.

On appeal, the Judiiciial Panel of the Tax Court deciided to partiially grant the appeal fiiled by the taxpayer. Further, at the Ciiviil Reviiew level, the Supreme Court stated iits rejectiion of the appliicatiion for the Ciiviil Reviiew submiitted by the taxpayer.

iif you are iinterested iin readiing thiis deciisiion iin full, viisiit the Supreme Court Deciisiion Diirectory webpage or here.

Chronology

The taxpayer objected to the assessment by the tax authoriitiies and fiiled an appeal to the Tax Court. The Judiiciial Panel of the Tax Court argued that three foreiign workers employed by the taxpayer qualiify as Resiident Taxpayers and have a Taxpayer iidentiifiicatiion Number.

The iincome receiived by the three workers has been subject to Artiicle 21 iincome Tax wiithholdiing by the taxpayer. However, one worker does not qualiify as a Resiident Taxpayer and hiis iincome iis subject to Artiicle 26 iincome Tax.

On the appeal, the Judiiciial Panel of the Tax Court deciided to partiially grant the appeal fiiled by the taxpayer. Wiith the iissuance of the Tax Court Deciisiion Number Put. 41587/PP/M.Vii/13/2012 dated 22 November 2012, the tax authoriitiies submiitted a legal measure iin the form of a Ciiviil Reviiew iin wriitiing to the Regiistry of the Tax Court on 11 March 2013.

The subject of diispute, iin thiis case, iis the correctiion of the Artiicle 26 iincome Tax object amountiing to iiDR256,368,320 whiich was not sustaiined by the Judiiciial Panel of the Tax Court.

Opiiniion of Partiies to the Diispute

The Ciiviil Reviiew appliicant objected to the legal consiideratiion of the Judiiciial Panel of the Tax Court. Based on audiits, iit was found that the Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent had hiired four foreiign workers who proviided consultiing serviices to the Respondent. Accordiing to the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant, the four foreiign workers are Non-Resiident Taxpayers iinstead of Resiident Taxpayers.

Thiis iis because there are no eviidence iin the form of liimiited stay permiit (KiiTAS) or permanent stay permiit (KiiTAP) documents statiing that the four employees iintend to resiide iin iindonesiia for more than 183 days iin one year. iin addiitiion, the four workers were not iin iindonesiia at the tiime of the fiield audiit.

Thus, iif the four workers receiive iincome from the Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent, they should be subject to Artiicle 26 iincome Tax. Thiis iis as stiipulated under Artiicle 26 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 1983 as amended by Law No. 36 of 2008 (the iincome Tax Law) whiich states that iincome iin connectiion wiith work receiived by foreiign workers constiitutiing Non-Resiident Taxpayers iis subject to Artiicle 26 iincome Tax payable. The employer iis requiired to wiithhold the iincome receiived by the foreiign workers by 20%.

However, iin thiis case, the Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent has not wiithheld Artiicle 26 iincome Tax on the iincome receiived by the foreiign workers he employs.

Further, upon the audiit, the Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent diid not proviide any supportiing eviidence that had been requested by the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant. The eviidence requested by the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant was not proviided untiil the objectiion process.

However, eviidence proviided duriing the objectiion process cannot be consiidered iin diispute resolutiion iin the Tax Court. Referriing to the above descriiptiion, the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant corrected the Artiicle 26 iincome Tax object.

The Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent diisagrees wiith the correctiion by the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant. Accordiing to the Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent, the foreiign workers he employs already qualiify as Resiident Taxpayers and have a Taxpayer iidentiifiicatiion Number.

The iincome receiived by the workers iis not an Artiicle 26 iincome Tax object, but an Artiicle 21 iincome Tax object. The non-wiithholdiing of Artiicle 21 iincome Tax by the Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent iis correct. Correctiions by the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant cannot be sustaiined.

Supreme Court Consiideratiions

The Supreme Court held that the reasons for the Ciiviil Reviiew were unjustiifiied. The Tax Court deciisiion grantiing part of the appeal iis appropriiate. There are two legal consiideratiions of the Tax Court Judges.

Fiirst, the correctiion of the Artiicle 26 iincome Tax object amountiing to iiDR256,368,320 cannot be justiifiied. After veriifyiing and re-assessiing the arguments put forward by the partiies, the opiiniion of the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant cannot iinvaliidate the facts and weaken the eviidence revealed iin the triial proceediing and the legal consiideratiions of the Judiiciial Panel of the Tax Court.

Second, iin the case a quo, iit has been proven that the three foreiign workers employed by the Ciiviil Reviiew Respondent have qualiifiied as Resiident Taxpayers and have a Taxpayer iidentiifiicatiion Number. The iincome receiived by the three workers iis not an Artiicle 26 iincome Tax object, but an Artiicle 21 iincome Tax object.

On the other hand, one of the workers iis a Non-Resiident Taxpayer and hiis iincome iis subject to Artiicle 26 iincome Tax. The correctiion by the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant cannot be sustaiined because iit does not comply wiith appliicable regulatiions.

Based on the above consiideratiions, the Ciiviil Reviiew appliicatiion iis consiidered unreasonable, thereby, must be rejected. Thus, the Ciiviil Reviiew Appliicant was declared the losiing party and sentenced to pay the costs of the case.