Coca-Cola tax evasion

Jakarta - One more tax evasion cases involving first-class company. This time it involves one of the companies in the group Coca-Cola Company, PT Coca-Cola Indonesia (CCI). PT CCI allegedly giving rise to outsmart tax underpayment of tax of Rp 49.24 billion.
Now the case is currently under appeal in the Tax Court. PT CCI appeal because it was already paid taxes according to regulations.
This is the case for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. Results search Directorate General of Taxation (DGT), the Ministry of Finance found that there is a large cost overruns that year. Large cost burden caused taxable income is reduced, so that the tax payment was reduced.
Costs are for the advertising of the time span in 2002-2006 with a total of Rp 566.84 billion. It finished beverage products for advertising Coca-Cola brand.
As a result, there is a decrease in taxable income. According to the DGT, the total taxable income in the period that CCI was Rp 603.48 billion. While the CCI calculations, taxable income is only Rp 492.59 billion. With the difference that, DGT calculating deficiency income tax (VAT) CCI Rp 49.24 billion.
For the DGT, the cost burden is very suspicious and lead to the transfer pricing practices in order to minimize taxes. Transfer pricing is the transaction of goods and services between multiple divisions in a business group with reasonable prices, so that the tax burden is reduced.
This practice can be detected if there are activities that do not comply with the company's business. PT CCI products are concentrated, not finished beverage products. However, they must pay great for advertising. "Advertising costs charged by PT CCI does not have a direct connection with the products," said Edward Sianipar, DJP representation in court on Thursday (06/12/2014).
Naturally, advertising costs borne by other Coca-Cola company. Just so you know, Coca-Cola Indonesia is divided in three companies, namely the focus on dealing with the concentrate, packaging, and distribution.
Meanwhile, in this trial, PT CCI represented by Price Water House Cooper (PWC) with its power is Ay Tjhin Pan and Mardianto. They appeal because DGT considered inconsistent inspection.
However, an expert witness who was present at the trial, namely Zainal Arifin Mochtar, pitch the laws of the State Administration, argued, DJP examination could be different in each period. It depends on the purpose of examination, whether for fairness or truth and evidence. "Examination of fairness is more in comparison to the examination of truth," he said.
However, at the hearing, the representative of PT CCI does not give a rebuttal or response. Furthermore, the judge will still take the case before the verdict.(Compass / mk)