Nama
Kelompok :
Deni Aulia ( 21212826 )
Dian Setyaningrum ( 22212041)
Kelas
: 4EB13
UNIVERSITAS
GUNADARMA
2016
Jurnal 1
The
International Transfer-Pricing Debate
Carl F. Steiss and Luc
Blanchette
Background
The
application of transfer-pricing techniques has often been described as an art
rather than a science. Yet, whatever the fundamentals applied to the practice
of the “art,” the immense surge of interest in recent years and ongoing
expressed concerns by governments and taxpayers have cast doubt upon and
initiated serious re-examination of those fundamentals.
In
this article, the term “transfer pricing” refers to pricing between related
entities and establishments of a multinational enterprise, particularly with
respect to sales of tan-gible property and sales and licensing of intangible
property crossing borders. Related, of course, to the subject of transfer pricing
are cost-sharing arrangements among related members of a multinational. The
subject of cost sharing is not specifically considered in this article.
Starting
with this initial reference point, we have organized the discus-sion that
follows into three main segments: an
overview of the highlights of US transfer-pricing history, a
review of the Canadian scene, and observations
on some of the more apparent areas of interest and concern as we move forward.
Purpose
Interest
and debate have been particularly vigorous in the United States, and a series
of developments in that country has in turn triggered a comprehensive review of
related-party pricing and transactions by the OECD. In the past decade or so,
Canada has not been idle in this area. It has responded to developments abroad
and intensified its own efforts through legislative and other initiatives with
respect to the monitoring and review of related-party transfer-pricing
methods.
As we look ahead, many uncertainties remain. There can be little doubt that
transfer pricing will continue to be a subject of keen interest to governments
and multinationals for some time to come.
Analysis
, the
arm’s-length standard is the primary basis in most devel-oped nations for
assessing reasonableness in related-party dealings. The standard has surfaced
in most bilateral income tax conventions, and the concept is firmly entrenched
in the OECD model income tax treaty. Congress expressed interest in and concern
about transfer pricing as early as 1917. The commissioner of internal revenue
was authorized to force worldwide consolidation of affiliated groups if he
believed it necessary in order to “equitably determine the invested capital or
taxable earnings” of a related corporate group. The business climate within
which US, as well as foreign-based, MNEs were operating was dramatically
changing. The economic resurgence fol-lowing World War II, as well as the
ongoing economic surge of the 1960s, was creating a very different economic
order. With the assistance of tre-mendous advances in communication, the world
was entering the global village era; international trade and cross-border
investment accelerated at an unparallelled pace. National issues were emerging,
involving taxing prerogatives and the determination of appropriate income
allocations of MNEs within countries and across international boundaries.
Societies and economies were becoming much more interdependent: people, goods,
capi-tal, and technology were moving unimpeded across borders, and
transfer-pricing issues and concerns were attracting more and more atten-tion.
Whereas historically international trade had for the most part involved the
shipment of finished products, the new trend among MNEs was to coordinate
multiple cross-border transfers of components, which would ultimately be
delivered to one destination and there assembled into a final product. MNEs
were unbundling and centralizing varied activities in cho-sen countries.
Location decisions were sensitive to such factors as cost, availability of
labour, accessibility to financial markets, and, of course, fiscal policy. The
fiscal scene itself revealed significant disparities in tax rates among
developed nations and an emerging desire among developing nations to ensure
appropriate allocations of income.
Object
of Research
The
subject of related-party transfer pricing is inextricably involved in all
international transactions within a global corporate group, and it has emerged
as one of today’s most vital considerations and concerns for many multinational
enterprises. Recently, transfer pricing has taken on added significance as
countries involved in expanding international trade display increasing
aggressiveness in competing for tax revenues and protecting their tax bases.
Interest and debate have been particularly vigorous in the United States, and a
series of developments in that country has in turn triggered a comprehensive
review of related-party pricing and transactions by the OECD. In the past
decade or so, Canada has not been idle in this area. It has responded to
developments abroad and intensified its own efforts through legislative and
other initiatives with respect to the monitoring and review of related-party
transfer-pricing
Conclusion
It
seems inevitable that activity in the transfer-pricing arena will con-tinue.
Some comfort can be taken from the fact that the OECD has updated its
guidelines and provided primary references to support related-party pricing
approaches. Furthermore, and perhaps particularly appropriate to more complex
pricing matters, the negotiation of APAs may prove a use-ful and pragmatic
solution in the more troublesome situations. Historical solutions to
significant cross-border disputes—notably, competent au-thority resolutions—may
not be as feasible as they have been in the past. Recourse to arbitration may
prove an effective alternative. However, for many MNEs, there may be no
attractive solution in the event of a transfer-pricing dispute: the stakes can
be very high and the process, if not the outcome, extremely disruptive. With
the enactment of the new US law and the publication of the OECD 1995
guidelines, the rules of the game for MNEs have changed significantly. The
primary defence of the MNE against challenges of re-lated-party pricing will be
to ensure that transactions within the group are “demonstrably” at arm’s
length. What might have been appropriate in the past will, in most instances,
not suffice in the future.
Jurnal
2
ADVANCE PRICING AGREEMENT
DAN PROBLEMATIKA TRANSFER PRICING
DARI PERSPEKTIF PERPAJAKAN INDONESIA
Iman Santoso
Latar
Belakang
Transfer
pricing merupakan isu klasik di bidang perpajakan, khususnya menyangkut
transaksi internasional yang dilakukan oleh korporasi multinasional. Dari sisi
pemerintahan, transfer pricing diyakini mengakibatkan berkurang atau hilangnya
potensi penerimaan pajak suatu negara karena perusahaan multi-nasional
cenderung menggeser kewajiban perpajakannya dari negara-negara yang memiliki
tarif pajak yang tinggi (high tax countries) ke negara-negara yang menerapkan
tarif pajak rendah (low tax countries). Di pihak lain dari sisi bisnis,
perusahaan cenderung berupaya meminimalkan biaya-biaya (cost efficiency) termasuk
di dalamnya minimalisasi pembayaran pajak perusahaan (corporate income tax).
Bagi korporasi multinasional, perusahaan berskala global (multi-national
corporations), transfer pricing dipercaya menjadi salah satu strategi yang
efektif untuk memenangkan persaingan dalam memperebutkan sumber-sumber daya
yang terbatas.
Di
tengah dua pandangan yang berlawanan tadi, tulisan ini mencoba menguraikan
lebih jauh mengenai solusi yang dicoba ditawarkan UU Pajak Penghasilan yang
berlaku (UU Nomor 17 Tahun 2000) terhadap isu ketidak-wajaran harga transaksi
yang berpengaruh signifikan dalam perhitungan pajak, terutama pajak penghasilan
(PPh) badan, yaitu: Advance Pricing Agreement (APA). APA dijadikan salah satu
upaya penanganan rekayasa transfer pricing dengan maksud untuk menyelaraskan
sistem perpajakan Indonesia dengan perkembangan perpajakan internasional,
disamping untuk mengatasi kebuntuan sehubungan dengan kurangnya akses data
eksternal dan tidak efektifnya exchange of information antarnegara khususnya
dalam melaksanakan pemerik-saan pajak sehubungan dengan transaksi yang
dilakukan oleh pihak-pihak yang memiliki hubungan istimewa dengan pihak-pihak
di luar negeri.
Mekanisme
APA memberikan wewenang kepada Direktorat Jenderal Pajak (DJP) untuk menutup
kesepakatan harga transfer (APA) dengan wajib pajak yang bersangkutan
(unilateral) atau dengan negara terkait (bilateral).
Tujuan
Transfer
pricing dapat dilakukan dengan motivasi pajak, yang bertujuan menggeser beban
pajak dari negara dengan tarif pajak tinggi ke negara dengan tarif pajak
rendah. Pergeseran ini diyakini dapat menghilangkan potensi penerimaan pajak
suatu negara. Untuk mencegah praktek transfer pricing dengan motivasi pajak
ini, Undang-Undang Pajak Penghasilan Indonesia mengatur tentang Advance Pricing
Agreement, yang adalah kesepakatan harga antara Wajib Pajak dengan aparat pajak
mengenai harga jual wajar atas produk yang dihasilkannya
Analisis
PT
A memiliki 25% saham PT B. Atas penyerahan barang PT A ke PT B, PT A
membebankan harga jual Rp 160, - per unit, berbeda dengan harga yang
diperhitungkan atas penyerahan barang yang sama kepada PT X (tidak ada hubungan
istimewa) yaitu Rp 200, per unit. Perlakuan perpajakannya adalah: dalam contoh
tersebut, harga pasar sebanding (comparable uncontrolled price) atas barang
yang sama adalah yang dijual kepada PT X yang tidak ada hubungan istimewa.
Dengan demikian harga yang wajar adalah Rp 200,- per unit. Harga ini dipakai
sebagai dasar perhitungan penghasilan dan/atau pengenaan pajak. Kalau PT A adalah
Pengusaha Kena Pajak (PKP), ia harus menyetor kekurangan PPN-nya (dan PPn BM
kalau terutang). Atas kekurangan tersebut dapat diterbitkan Surat Ketetapan
Pajak (SKP) dan PT A tidak boleh menerbitkan faktur pajak atas kekurangan
tersebut, sehingga tidak merupakan kredit pajak bagi PT B.
kesimpulan
Beberapa
hambatan penerapan APA di Indonesia, seperti: (i) kurangnya sumber daya manusia
yang memiliki keahlian khusus di bidang transfer pricing; (ii) sistem pendataan
dan dokumentasi yang masih belum memadai dan terorganisir baik; serta (iii)
moralitas otoritas fiskal dan wajib pajak yang masih perlu terus-menerus
diperbaiki, kiranya tidak dipakai untuk dijadikan alasan agar tidak meneruskan
pembenahan prosedur teknis pengajuan APA yang telah dijadikan salah satu
alternatif pencegahan praktik transfer pricing pada korporasi multinasional
dalam UU Pajak kita.
Pengalaman
penerapan APA di negara-negara yang telah lebih dahulu memperkenalkan sistem
ini pun harus dipelajari agar implikasinya terhadap korporasi multinasional dan
iklim bisnis di Indonesia secara keseluruhan terus membaik. Satu hal yang perlu
diingat di dalam penerapan sistem APA ini, bahwasanya bersifat sukarela.
Artinya otoritas fiskal Indonesia tidak dapat memaksa atau mewajibkan korporasi
multinasional untuk ikut berpartisipasi di dalam program APA ini. Oleh
karenanya, keberhasilan sistem APA ini akan sangat tergantung kepada otoritas
fiskal untuk membuatnya “menarik”.
