Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"The findings of tax audit stipulated in the tax decree letter sometimes create disputes between tax payers and fiscus. The resolution of the tax dispute is done through Objection Institution at the first level, then Tax Court, and finally Supreme Court. Based on the data there were many appeal pledges granted at the appeal level. Long process along with the charges imposed on the tax payers for some parts of their outstanding taxes as a formal requirement of pledging the appeal has caused high cost from the part of tax payers. The Objection Institution is expected by the tax payers to be able to fulfil their aspirations in seeking for justice.This thesis was intended to provide a picture about what went on in the tax disputes that went into the appeal level of Tax Court; how the attitude of assembly towards the approch to calculating the Fiscus, what were the weaknesses of the audit results, and what solutions that could be done to overcome the problems.To answer those questions the data in a farm of Tax Court verdicts were collected and analysed. To limit the problems the verdicts (data) that were analysed were only verdicts related with the objections in the Regional Office of Directorate General of Tax Jakarta II. and confined to Income Tax type. Based on the research it was found that there a few things that made the difference between fiscus and tax payers. amongst other split opinions in verifying the supporting evidence, the officials handicaps in understanding and interpreting the patterns of the fax payers' businesses, the ignorance of the tax payers in understanding the tax rules and regulations. and the inadequate rules of tax implementation. From the four factors, in fact, the real problems were the followings:- Split opinions in verifying supporting evidence;- The officials handicaps in understanding and interpreting the patterns of the tax payers' businesses and accountancy;- The inadequate rules of tax implementationThe reviewed or cancelled tax assesments in the appeal process showed that there were weaknesses in the auditing products. Such weaknesses occurred particularly due to the insufficient application of the auditing procedures. The auditors found the indication of tax potency, however. they were not able to proove it with conclusive material evidence so that the auditors' correction could not be defended in the Tax Court.The unsatisfied tax payers towards the audit results had made the tax payers to take the objection process until the appeal and review. The length of the time span had caused two things:- The service provision to the tax payers decreased;- Opportunity for the tax payers.The correction in audit procedures was the main key because the audit results would play significant role and would determine the research process in the objection level, tax court, as well as judicial review in the Supreme Court. The confirmation of the data availabilty was of great importance, on condition that the tax payers were given sufficient time to respond to the audit resultsThe performance of the Objection Institution needed to be improved so that it could deny such negative perceptions as: stamping the audit results, lengthening the audit period, or merely to decrease the amount taxes that were reported to the Tax Court. To overcome such problems there needed to consider the discourse (concept) to shorten the objection resolution period, besides the proposal to consider jurisprudency of the Tax Court verdicts."

"ABSTRAKBelum banyaknya studi mengenai kasus sengketa banding atas koreksi kewajaran hargaatas imbalan bunga di Pengadilan Pajak membuat penulis tertarik untuk meneliti kasussejenis. Penulis mengangkat satu kasus sengketa banding dimana DJP melakukankoreksi kewajaran harga yang relatif besar nilainya. Struktur transaksi yang melibatkanhubungan istimewa antara perusahaan di Indonesia serta British Virgin Island danSingapura, serta putusan pengadilan pajak membuat kasus ini menarik untuk diteliti.Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti kesesuaian koreksi DJP dengan konsep transferpricing, menganalisis kesesuaian transaksi dengan kriteria abuse transfer pricing, sertamenguraikan dan menganalisis putusan majelis hakim. Penelitian ini menggunakanpendekatan kualitatif dengan jenis penelitian deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkankoreksi DJP pada kasus yang dibahas tidak sesuai dengan konsep transfer pricingkarena mengabaikan analisis kesebandingan. Transaksi yang dibahas sendiri terindikasisebagai abuse transfer pricing karena melibatkan perusahaan yang berdomisili dinegara dengan tarif yang lebih rendah dari Indonesia. Kemudian permasalahan terakhiradalah mengenai putusan majelis yang menerima permohonan banding karenakelemahan bukti yang diajukan DJP. DJP juga terbukti tidak mengikuti ketentuanperpajakan yang berlaku dalam menentukan harga wajar sehingga posisinya lebih lemahdari pemohon banding.

---

ABSTRACTThe case of tax appeal on the reasonableness of interest income correction have not yetdiscussed by many writers. This has lead the writer to study on such a case, where theDGT made a correction of interest income received by a tax payer in Indonesia. Thefirst reason why this case is encouraging to be discussed is the amount of the correctionwas relatively high. Secondly, the structure of the transaction also relate companiesfrom Indonesia, British Virgin Island, and Singapore. Lastly, the verdict of the tax courtthat received the tax payer appeal has bring the attention to the writer. The purposes ofthis study are to analyze the properness of the DGT correction base on the transferpricing concept, analyze the transaction and indicate it as an abuse transfer pricing,and also analyze the verdict of the tax court on the case. This study use a qualitativeapproach and a descriptive type of research. The result of the study showed that DGThave not yet properly followed the concept of transfer pricing on the correction becauseit fails to made a comparability analysis. The transaction it self could indicate an abuseof transfer pricing because it involves companies incorporated in the British VirginIsland, which do not impose tax income on the tax payer. And on the last issue, the taxcourt received the tax payer appeal because DGT fail to submit a valid evidence. DGTalso fail to followed the regulation properly on the case."

"Salah satu hak Wajib Pajak adalah hak untuk mengajukan keberatan dan banding. Sesuai dengan peraturan perundangan yang berlaku Direktorat Jenderal Pajak diberi kewenangan untuk menangani keberatan sedangkan Pengadilan Pajak diberi kewenangan untuk menangani banding.Efisiensi dan efektifitas merupakan saiah satu tolok ukur kesuksesan organisasi termasuk bagi Direktorat Jendera! Pajak dan Pengadilan Pajak.Dari penelitian terhadap 123 putusan banding Pengadilan Pajak diketahui bahwa keberatan Wajib Pajak Kebanyakan diselesaikan dalam jangka waktu 11 dan 12 bulan. dan 92% keputusan keberatan yang diajukan banding memenangkan Wajib Pajak. Dengan demikian alokasi sumberdaya fiskus untuk menyelesaikan keberatan tidak imbang dengan hasil akhir yang dicapai, artinya tindakan fiskus menyelelesaikan keberatan dalam jangka waktu optimum tidak efisien.Bila telusuri lebih jauh alasan institusi peradilan memenangkan Wajib Pajak sebagian besar disebabkan Iemahnya daser koreksi pemeriksa dalam tahap pemeriksaan sehingga ketidakefisienan yang terjadi sebenarnya dimulai dari tahap ini.Sedangkan penyelesaian banding sebagian besar diselesaikan dalam jangka waklu 12 bulan jangka waktu ini lermasuk 3 bulan untuk permintaan Surai Uraian Banding dan 30 hari untuk kelengkapan Surat Bantahan. Walaupun Majelis Pengadilan tidak selalu menyidangkan semua kasus menunggu diterimanya dua dokumen tersebut dari segi pencapaian tujuan yakni memberikan perlindungan Kepada rakyat, kepuasan konstituen yakni Wajib Pajak yang mengajukan banding dapat dikatakan lembaga ini tergolong memenuhi unsur Efisiensi dan efektifitas, karena 92% perkara yang diajukan banding memenangkan Wajib Pajak akibat koreksi pemeriksa yang tidak berdasar.

---

One of the taxpayer rights is the right to apply an objection and an appeal. According to the tax regulation. Directorate General of Taxes has an authority to proceed taxpayer objection while Tax Court has and authority to proceed tax appeal.Efficiency and effectiveness are the criteria on measuring successfulness of organization including both Directorate General of Taxes and Tax Court.From research to 123 Tax Courts appeal decisions, it's known that Taxpayer objections mostly finished within 11 of 12 months and 92 percent of the appeal decision on tax objection was won by the taxpayer. Thereby allocation of the tax office's human resources to proceed taxpayer objection do not balance with the final decision, it means that tax official works inefficiently on tax objection within the optimum period. if it's traced to the reason on tax court institution to win Taxpayer. it's mostly caused by the weakness of tax auditor's corrective bases during audit phase so that inefficiency was started from this phase.While tax appeal completion mostly finished within 12 months. this period is including both 3 months for the request of Surat Uraian Banding, and 30 days to fulfill Surat Bantahan. Although Tax Court do not always hold meeting on all cases, await receiving both document, from the planed goal that is give protection to people, satisfaction of constituent taxpayer who submit tax appeal. this institute's pertained to fulfill both efficiency and effectiveness element, because 92% of cases won by Taxpayer on the effect of inappropriate tax audit."

"

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis perkembangan sengketa Pajak Penghasilan Orang Pribadi (PPh OP) di Pengadilan Pajak, karakteristik Wajib Pajak (WP) Orang Pribadi yang mengajukan sengketa Pajak Penghasilan Orang Pribadi di Pengadilan Pajak, dan faktor penyebab sengketa Pajak Penghasilan Pasal 25/29 Orang Pribadi. Penelitian dilakukan dengan metode analisis konten. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perkembangan putusan Pajak Penghasilan Orang Pribadi Pasal 25/29 pada periode 2019 s.d. 2022 di Pengadilan Pajak adalah sebagai berikut: mengalami tren kenaikan, berdasarkan tahun pajak yang diajukan banding cenderung mengalami tren yang fluktuatif, lebih banyak yang memenangkan pihak DJP, dan 59,18% nilai sengketa bernilai di bawah 4,8 milyar rupiah. Karakteristik Wajib Pajak yang mengajukan sengketa adalah sebagai berikut: 86% berjenis kelamin laki-laki, 21 Wajib Pajak teridentifikasi sebagai pegawai swasta, 21 Wajib Pajak beralamat di DKI Jakarta, dan saat dilaksanakan persidangan mempercayakan penanganan sengketa banding di Pengadilan Pajak, dan 42 Wajib Pajak menggunakan jasa kuasa hukum. Sengketa PPh OP Pasal 25/29 tahun 2019 s.d. 2022 dapat diklasifikasikan menjadi dua klasifikasi besar, yakni sengketa formal dan material. Sengketa formal disebabkan karena Pemohon Banding tidak mengetahui pemenuhan kewajiban perpajakan dengan baik dan benar, Pemohon Banding melakukan kesalahan/kekhilafan dalam pengisian SPT, dan Pemohon Banding tidak melaksanakan kewajiban perpajakan. Sedangkan pada sengketa material, tiga penyebab terbesar terkait sengketa neto disebabkan oleh tidak terdapatnya bukti yang memadai atas mutasi yang terdapat dalam rekening Pemohon Banding, perbedaan pandangan dan pembuktian sehubungan dengan transaksi saham, dan status kepemilikan harta

---

This research aims to analyze the development of disputes over Personal Income Tax (PPh OP) at the Tax Court, the characteristics of individual taxpayers (WP) filing disputes over Personal Income Tax at the Tax Court, and the factors causing disputes over Personal Income Tax Article 25/29 for individuals. The research was conducted using content analysis method. The results show that the development of decisions on Personal Income Tax Article 25/29 from 2019 to 2022 at the Tax Court is as follows: experiencing an increasing trend, based on the appealed tax years, it tends to exhibit a fluctuating trend, with more cases won by the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP), and 59.18% of dispute values are below 4.8 billion rupiahs. The characteristics of taxpayers filing disputes are as follows: 86% are male, 21 taxpayers identified as private employees, 21 taxpayers reside in DKI Jakarta, and during the trial, they entrusted the handling of appeal disputes at the Tax Court, with 42 taxpayers using legal representation. Disputes over PPh OP Article 25/29 from 2019 to 2022 can be classified into two major classifications, namely formal and material disputes. Formal disputes are caused by the Appellant not being aware of fulfilling tax obligations properly, making mistakes/errors in filling out tax returns, and not fulfilling tax obligations. In contrast, material disputes, with three main causes related to net disputes, are caused by the lack of sufficient evidence of mutations in the Appellant's account, differences in views and evidence regarding stock transactions, and differences of opinion on asset ownership status

"

"Sengketa terjadi atas koreksi biaya royalti penggunaan trademark antara Direktorat Jenderal Pajak dan PT A Indonesia. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kesesuaian koreksi biaya royalti dengan Arm’s Length Principle  (ALP) dan kesesuaian dasar pertimbangan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Pajak dengan peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan. Konsep yang digunakan adalah ALP atas transfer harta tidak berwujud menurut ketentuan perpajakan domestik dan OECD Transfer Pricing Guideline. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan pendekatan kuantitatif.  Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa koreksi yang dilakukan oleh DJP tidak sesuai dengan ALP dan dasar pertimbangan Majelis Hakim telah sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan. Saran dari penulis agar ketentuan TP di Indonesia lebih diperjelas guna mencegah terjadinya sengketa.

---

The dispute arise upon the correction to royalty expense for the use of trademark between PT A Indonesia and Directorate General of Taxes (DGT). This research aims to analyze comfirmity between the correction to royalty expense and the ALP. Also it is to analyze the consideration basis of the Judges at the Indonesia Tax Court in settling  the appeal dispute according to the prevailing tax regulation. The consept use in this research is the ALP of intangible asset transfer according to the domestic tax regulation and OECD Transfer Pricing Guideline. This research use the quantitative method approach. The result shows that the correction to royalty expense conducted by DGT is not complied with ALP and the consideration basis of the Judges’s decision in appeal dispute is in accordance with the prevaling tax regulation. This research suggested it is important to make clearer transfer pricing regulation in Indonesia to avoid any unnecessary disputes."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis karakteristik Wajib Pajak, karakteristik sengketa pajak dan penyebab terjadinya sengketa banding Pajak Penghasilan Pasal 26 yang memiliki amar mengabulkan seluruhnya. Selain itu penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dari aspek pembuktian maupun aspek yuridis dalam memberikan putusannya. Penelitian ini diharapkan dapat menjawab permasalahan terkait tingginya tingkat kekalahan DJP dalam sengketa banding PPh Pasal 26. Kekalahan DJP yang tinggi ini berpotensi akan menurunkan tingkat kepercayaan dari masyarakat terhadap sistem perpajakan di Indonesia sekaligus adanya ketidakpastian hukum terkait kewajiban pajak yang seharusnya dimiliki oleh Wajib Pajak. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode analisis konten melalui Putusan Pengadilan Pajak PPh Pasal 26 yang memiliki amar mengabulkan seluruhnya untuk tahun 2021 sampai dengan 2023. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa sengketa banding PPh Pasal 26 yang memiliki amar mengabulkan seluruhnya didominasi oleh Wajib Pajak yang berasal dari Provinsi Daerah Khusus Jakarta, Wajib Pajak diwakili oleh kuasa hukum, sedangkan dari sisi DJP, persidangan diwakili oleh Direktorat Keberatan dan Banding. Dibutuhkan rata-rata 5,85 tahun sejak berakhirnya tahun pajak hingga diputuskannya sengketa PPh Pasal 26. Rata-rata nilai sengketa PPh Pasal 26 yang mengabulkan seluruhnya memiliki nilai Rp2.806.297.633,00 di mana 74,89% sengketa terkait dengan sengketa objek dan 25,11% merupakan sengketa tarif. Terdapat 3 alasan utama terjadinya sengketa PPh Pasal 26 yakni adanya perbedaan pendapat atas kondisi suatu transaksi, perbedaan pendapat terkait subjek pajak yang menerima penghasilan dan adanya perbedaan pendapat mengenai pemenuhan kewajiban dalam melakukan pemotongan dan pelaporan. Dari sisi pembuktian, Majelis Hakim melihat kepada substansi dan nature yang seharusnya dari sengketa dalam menentukan suatu putusan sedangkan dari segi yuridis, Majelis Hakim akan berdasarkan kepada peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan menjadi dasar penilaian bukti yang diserahkan oleh para pihak yang bersengketa.

---

This research aims to analyze the characteristics of taxpayers, tax disputes and the causes of Income Tax Article 26 disputes that have the “Grant Entirely” verdict. This research is expected to answer problems related to the high level of DGT defeat in the dispute of Income Tax Article 26. The high of defeat level has the potential to reduce the level of trust from the public in the tax system in Indonesia as well as legal uncertainty related to tax obligations that should be owned by taxpayers. This research is conducted using content analysis method through Income Tax Article 26 Court Decisions that have a ruling to grant entirely for the years 2021 to 2023. The results of this study show that Income Tax Article 26 appeal disputes that have a ruling to grant entirely are dominated by taxpayers from the Daerah Khusus Jakarta Province, taxpayers are represented by legal counsel, while from the DGT side, the trial is represented by the Directorate of Objections and Appeals. It takes an average of 5.85 years from the end of the tax year until the Income Tax Article 26 dispute is decided. The average value of Income Tax Article 26 disputes has a value of Rp2,806,297,633.00 where 74.89% of disputes are related to object disputes and 25.11% are tariff disputes. There are 3 main reasons for the occurrence these disputes, namely differences of opinion on the conditions of a transaction, differences of opinion regarding the tax subject who receives income and differences of opinion regarding the fulfillment of obligations in withholding and reporting. In terms of evidence, The Judges look at the substance and nature of the dispute in determining a decision while from a juridical perspective, The Judges will be based on the applicable laws and regulations and become the basis for evaluating the evidence in the dispute. "

"Praktik transfer pricing di Indonesia berkembang pesat beriringan dengan perkembangan perusahaan multinasional. Berkaitan dengan hal ini, baik DJP maupun Wajib Pajak harus memenuhi peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dalam menerapkan PKKU pada praktik transfer pricing. Namun, tidak jarang ditemukan baik DJP maupun Wajib Pajak belum dapat mengimplementasikan ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut, yang kemudian mengarah kepada terjadinya sengketa pajak. Salah satu isu yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini berfokus pada analisis koreksi biaya bunga pinjaman dan penerapan secondary adjustment dalam konteks keputusan Pengadilan Pajak atas permohonan Banding PT WBI. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengevaluasi kesesuaian putusan Pengadilan Pajak terhadap PKKU dalam koreksi yang dilakukan oleh DJP serta penerapan secondary adjustment. Metode yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kualitatif dengan studi lapangan dan studi pustaka, yang menggabungkan analisis dokumen dengan wawancara mendalam terhadap berbagai pihak yang terlibat dalam kasus ini. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Majelis Hakim telah mempertimbangkan argumen DJP dan Wajib Pajak dalam memutus sengketa dengan tetap memperhatikan regulasi yang ada. Koreksi yang dilakukan oleh DJP tidak didukung oleh bukti yang memadai, sehingga mengakibatkan pembatalan primary adjustment dan mempengaruhi kelayakan secondary adjustment yang diterapkan. Kesimpulannya, Majelis Hakim telah mengambil keputusan sejalan dengan PKKU, serta secondary adjustment dibatalkan karena pengaruh dari pembatalan primary adjustment. Namun demikian, penerapan secondary adjustment tetap harus diperhatikan karena tidak dapat diterapkan kepada seluruh Wajib Pajak. Kebutuhan akan kejelasan lebih lanjut bahwa penerapan secondary adjustment kepada selain pemegang saham diperlukan untuk mencegah sengketa pajak di masa mendatang.

---

The practice of transfer pricing in Indonesia has developed rapidly along with the growth of multinational companies. In this context, both the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP) and taxpayers are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations in implementing the General Provisions of Tax Procedures (PKKU) in transfer pricing practices. However, it is not uncommon to find that both the DJP and taxpayers have not yet implemented these provisions, leading to tax disputes. One issue addressed in this research focuses on the analysis of interest expense corrections and the application of secondary adjustments in the context of the Tax Court's decision on PT WBI's appeal. The objective of this study is to evaluate the consistency of the Tax Court's decision with PKKU in the corrections made by the DJP and the application of secondary adjustments. The method used is a qualitative approach with field studies and literature studies, combining document analysis with in-depth interviews with various parties involved in this case. The research findings indicate that the panel of judges considered the arguments of both the DJP and the taxpayers in resolving the dispute while still considering the existing regulations. The corrections made by the DJP were not supported by sufficient evidence, resulting in the annulment of the primary adjustment and affecting the feasibility of the secondary adjustment applied. In conclusion, the panel of judges made decisions in line with PKKU, and the secondary adjustment was canceled due to the impact of the annulment of the primary adjustment. However, the application of secondary adjustments must still be considered as they cannot be applied to all taxpayers. A further need for clarity that the application of secondary adjustments to parties other than shareholders is necessary to prevent future tax disputes."

"Sengketa transfer pricing terhadap pembayaran royalti atas pemanfaatan harta tidak berwujud dan know-how tidak hanya berfokus pada penentuan harga transfer atas royalti. Sebelum menguji kewajaran dan kelaziman pembayaran royalti, terlebih dahulu harus dibuktikan eksistensi dan kepemilikan harta tidak berwujud dan manfaat ekonomis atas pembayaran royalti. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis pertimbangan Hakim dalam memutus sengketa pajak berdasarkan koreksi Otoritas Pajak (DJP) dan argumentasi Wajib Pajak yang didasarkan pada 5 (lima) putusan pengadilan pajak, serta memperoleh lesson learned berupa faktor-faktor substansial dalam transaksi pembayaran royalti kepada pihak yang dipengaruhi oleh hubungan istimewa. Metode penelitian yang digunakan berupa pendekatan kualitatif dengan melakukan studi literatur dan studi lapangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pertimbangan Hakim dalam memutus sengketa didasari oleh pembuktian atas eksistensi dan kepemilikan, manfaat ekonomis, dan kewajaran harga royalti dari masing-masing pihak yang bersengketa dalam mempertahankan argumentasinya serta kesesuaian bukti dengan regulasi yang berlaku. Tax planning, penerapan prinsip kewajaran dan kelaziman usaha yang baik dan benar, kolaborasi dalam perumusan regulasi, dan standarisasi pemeriksaan menjadi solusi untuk meminimalisir jumlah sengketa transfer pricing atas pembayaran royalti.

---

Transfer pricing disputes concerning royalty payments for the use of intangible assets and know-how do not solely focus on determining the transfer price of royalties. Before assessing the fairness and reasonableness of royalty payments, the existence and ownership of the intangible assets and the economic benefits of the royalty payments must first be proven. This research aims to analyze the judges' considerations in resolving tax disputes based on corrections by the Tax Authority (DJP) and the taxpayer's arguments, as reflected in five tax court rulings. Additionally, the research seeks to derive lessons learned regarding the substantial factors in royalty payment transactions involving related parties. The research method used is a qualitative approach, involving literature review and field studies. The findings indicate that the judges' considerations in resolving disputes are based on the proof of existence and ownership, economic benefits, and the fairness of royalty prices from each disputing party in defending their arguments, as well as the conformity of evidence with applicable regulations. Tax planning, the application of proper and accurate arm's length principles, collaboration in regulatory formulation, and standardized audits are proposed as solutions to minimize the number of transfer pricing disputes over royalty payments."

"Risiko pemeriksaan atas transfer pricing masih menjadi salah satu isu yang menjadi kekhawatiran di kalangan eksekutif perpajakan dan keuangan masuk ke dalam posisi teratas dalam survei Ernest & Young tahun 2023. Selain itu, isu ini masih menjadi pembahasan antara OECD dan negara yang tergabung dalam G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS yang mana mereka mulai mengembangkan pendekatan Pillar One & Pillar Two untuk salah satunya untuk mengatasi sengketa pajak transfer pricing. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis karakteristik wajib pajak sebagai indikator penting untuk menentukan pemenuhan prinsip kewajaran dan kelaziman usaha. Selain itu, penelitian ini menganalisis penyebab sengketa pajak pada seluruh jenis transaksi afiliasi yang mengalami sengketa pajak transfer pricing sehingga memperoleh hasil analisis yang lebih luas. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa setiap jenis transaksi afiliasi yang mengalami sengketa pajak transfer pricing memiliki karakteristik wajib pajak dengan kondisi industri dan kondisi transaksi afiliasi yang berbeda-beda. Selain itu, hasil penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa setiap jenis transaksi afiliasi memiliki penyebab sengketa pajak transfer pricing berbeda tergantung pada indikator-indikator prinsip kewajaran dan kelaziman usaha yang paling dominan menimbulkan sengketa pajak. Penelitian ini diharapkan bisa menjadi acuan informasi bagi pemeriksa pajak untuk melakukan evaluasi atas proses pemeriksaan ketika dalam menentukan koreksi sengketa pajak transfer pricing, serta mendorong wajib pajak untuk membuat dokumentasi transfer pricing yang benar, jelas, dan komprehensif.

---

The risk of transfer pricing’s audit is still the main issues and concerns among and finance executives according to the 2023 survey by Ernest & Young. Furthermore, this issue is still hot topic for discussion between the OECD and the members of the G20 that join in Inclusive Framework on BEPS (IF). One of the topics of discussion is related to dispute resolution with the Pillar One & Pillar Two approach developed by OECD to resolve transfer pricing tax disputes. Therefore, this study aims to analysis the characteristics of taxpayers as important indicator in the application of arm’s length principle. Furthermore, this study aims to analyzes the causes of tax disputes according to all types of affiliate transactions that experience transfer pricing tax disputes to obtain extensive analysis. The results of this study show that each type of affiliates transactions that experiences a transfer pricing tax dispute have the different characteristics of taxpayers with different industry conditions and affiliate transactions. The results of this study also show that each type of affiliates transaction has different causes of tax disputes according to the indicators of arm’s length principles. Hereinafter, this study should be become an information reference for tax auditors to evaluate the audit process when determining corrections to transfer pricing tax disputes, as well as encourage taxpayers to prepare correctly, clear, and comprehensive transfer pricing documentation."