Transfer Pricing

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 3

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”.