Article Sidebar

Download
Statistic
Read Counter : 28

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: this article examines how transfer pricing disputes are adjudicated and why formal procedure diverges from everyday courtroom practice.
Method: a two-month ethnomethodological engagement in one adjudication panel, combining observation, nine interviews, and document study.
Results: adjudication runs on a uniform procedural layer and a substantive layer specific to transfer pricing; Article 76 sets no floor to the standard of proof, which each panel fills differently.
Novelty: the study reads courtroom practice from inside using social systems theory and indexicality rather than from decided cases.
Contribution: it offers an evidentiary map for the court, the tax authority, and taxpayers.


Di Balik Sengketa Penetapan Harga Transfer: Makna Bukti Akuntansi


Tujuan: Artikel ini mengkaji bagaimana sengketa penetapan harga transfer diadili dan mengapa prosedur formal berbeda dengan praktik sehari-hari di ruang sidang.
Metode: Pendekatan etnometodologis selama dua bulan pada satu panel ajudikasi, yang mencakup observasi, sembilan wawancara, dan studi dokumen.
Hasil: Proses ajudikasi berjalan melalui lapisan prosedural yang seragam serta lapisan substantif yang spesifik untuk penetapan harga transfer; Pasal 76 tidak menetapkan ambang batas minimum untuk standar pembuktian, sehingga setiap panel menafsirkannya dengan cara yang berbeda.
Kebaruan: Studi ini menelaah praktik ruang sidang dari sudut pandang internal dengan menggunakan teori sistem sosial dan indeksikalitas, alih-alih sekadar menganalisis putusan pengadilan yang telah diputuskan.
Kontribusi: Studi ini menyajikan peta pembuktian bagi pengadilan, otoritas pajak, dan wajib pajak.


 

Keywords

accounting evidence ethnomethodology judicial discretion tax court transfer pricing

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Alya Maheswari Santoso, Resi Ariyasa Qadri

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Doeleman R. In Principle, (Im)possible: Harmonizing an EU Arm’s Length Principle. EC Tax Review 2023;32. https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2023015.
  2. Kumalasari KP, Sukoharsono EG, Purwanti L, et al. Revisiting the CUP Method in Transfer Pricing: Global Challenges and Insights from an SLR. Cogent Business & Management 2025;12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2570884.
  3. Sander H, Scherer A-L, Schmiel U. The Arm’s Length Principle – An Adequate Means for Taxing Multinational Corporate Groups? Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2023-0018.
  4. Muzychuk MI, Fomina O V. Functions, Assets and Risk Analysis in the Preparation of Transfer Pricing Documentation. Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance 2021;9. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujaf.2021.090505.
  5. Dwindahany CS, Efendi S. Should Excessive Marketing Expenses Be Remunerated? Lessons from Indonesia’s Tax Court Decisions. Jurisdictie: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah 2024;15. https://doi.org/10.18860/j.v15i1.26915.
  6. Ibnususilo E, Shalihah F, Istiani N, et al. Legal Discovery in Indonesia’s Tax Dispute Framework. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System 2025;5. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v5i1.496.
  7. Tambunan MRUD. Notes on Tax Disputes from Misapplication of Indonesia-Japan Tax Treaty: A Study Based on Indonesian Tax Court Decisions. Global Trade and Customs Journal 2024;19:37–49. https://doi.org/10.54648/GTCJ2024011.
  8. Apriyanti HW, Sulaiman S, Jamaluddin A. Transfer Pricing Optimization in the Developing Economy: A Tax Consultant’s View. Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review 2023;7:190–6. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgobrv7i2p17.
  9. Danon R, Gutmann D, Maisto G, et al. The OECD/G20 Global Minimum Tax and Dispute Resolution: A Workable Solution Based on Article 25(3) of the OECD Model, the Principle of Reciprocity and the GloBE Model Rules. World Tax Journal 2022;14. https://doi.org/10.59403/22yqkah.
  10. Markham M. The Search for Certainty in Dispute Resolution in International Tax: An Evaluation of OECD Statistics and Initiatives. Bulletin for International Taxation 2024;78. https://doi.org/10.59403/3abqq31.
  11. Kumar S, Pandey N, Lim WM, et al. What Do We Know About Transfer Pricing? Insights from Bibliometric Analysis. J Bus Res 2021;134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.041.
  12. Rathke AAT, Rezende AJ, Watrin C. The Impact of Countries’ Transfer Pricing Rules on Profit Shifting. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 2021;22. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-03-2020-0034.
  13. Sebele-Mpofu F, Mashiri E, Schwartz SC. An Exposition of Transfer Pricing Motives, Strategies and Their Implementation in Tax Avoidance by MNEs in Developing Countries. Cogent Business and Management 2021;8. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944007.
  14. Iriyadi, Meiryani, Darmawan MA, et al. The Effect of Sustainability Reporting, Transfer Pricing, and Deferred Tax Expense on Tax Avoidance in Multinational Manufacturing Sector Companies. Journal of Governance and Regulation 2024;13. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv13i1art5.
  15. Sari DK, Siregar SV, Martani D, et al. The Effect of Audit Quality on Transfer Pricing Aggressiveness and Firm Risk: Evidence from Southeast Asian Countries. Cogent Business and Management 2023;10. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2224151.
  16. Tanasić L, Lalić SM, Jovičić Ž, et al. The Impact of Transfer Pricing on the Optimization of the Financial and Tax Positions of Related Entities in the Republic of Srpska. Economic Horizons 2025;27. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekonhor2502169T.
  17. Arnold M, Elsinger F, Rankin FW. The Unintended Consequences of Headquarters’ Involvement in Decentralized Transfer Price Negotiations: Experimental Evidence. Manage Sci 2021;67. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3843.
  18. Bärsch S-E, Heckemeyer J, Olbert M. Do Firms with a Centralized Transfer Pricing Authority Have More Tax Disputes and Internal Coordination Conflicts? Journal of Business Economics 2023;93:1415–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01146-8.
  19. Demko-Rihter J, Sekerez V, Spasić D, et al. The Neglected Focus on Managerial Aspect of Transfer Pricing Policy in Multidivisional Companies—Case of Serbia. Systems 2023;11:257. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11050257.
  20. Mukhtaruddin, Tanujaya J, Kalsum U. Transfer Pricing and Tax Avoidance: A Study on Manufacturing Companies Listed in Indonesia. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies 2025;12. https://doi.org/10.14419/5fxgv314.
  21. Oktaviani RM, Wulandari S, Sunarto. Multinational Corporate Tax Avoidance in Indonesia. International Journal of Professional Business Review 2023;8. https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2023.v8i2.1549.
  22. Sari MP, Budiarto A, Raharja S, et al. The Determinant of Transfer Pricing in Indonesian Multinational Companies: Moderation Effect of Tax Expenses. Investment Management and Financial Innovations 2022;19. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.19(3).2022.22.
  23. Tanujaya J, Mukhtaruddin M, Fuadah LL. Transfer Pricing and Tax Avoidance Strategy: The Role of Foreign Ownership. Corporate and Business Strategy Review 2026;7. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv7i1art12.
  24. Sebele-Mpofu FY, Mashiri E, Korera P. Transfer Pricing Audit Challenges and Dispute Resolution Effectiveness in Developing Countries with Specific Focus on Zimbabwe. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium 2025;15:223–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2021-0026.
  25. Amato LF. The Legacy of Luhmann’s Sociology of Law: A Trialogue among Social Theory, Jurisprudence and Empirical Research. Onati Socio-Legal Series 2024;14. https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL.1923.
  26. Barros V. How to Work with Niklas Luhmann? A Practical Guide. Acta Sociologica (United Kingdom) 2026;69. https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993251324870.
  27. Nielsen SPP. Introduction: A Special Issue on Niklas Luhmann’s Systems Theory and Law. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 2024;14:1206–26. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1855.
  28. Grothe-Hammer M. The Communicative Constitution of the World: A Luhmannian View on Communication, Organizations, and Society. The Routledge Handbook of the Communicative Constitution of Organization, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003224914-7.
  29. Rogowski R. The Anthem Companion to Niklas Luhmann. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.766968.
  30. Hikaka G, Prebble J. Autopoiesis and General Anti-Avoidance Rules. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2010;21:545–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2009.07.001.
  31. Vilaça GV. Interdisciplinarity and Tax Law: The Case of Legal Autopoiesis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2012;23:483–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.04.002.
  32. Sun Y, Zhu X, Liu K. Judicial Jigsaw and Power Dynamics: A Cognitive-Functional Analysis of Chinese Courtroom Discourse. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2025;10. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2025-2009.
  33. Wiesner C. Doing Qualitative and Interpretative Research: Reflecting Principles and Principled Challenges. Political Research Exchange 2022;4. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2127372.
  34. Meyer C. Context-Sensitivity and Context-Productivity: Notions of “Practice” and “Practicality” in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Frontiers in Sociology 2024;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1221026.
  35. Padua JP. Ethnomethodology of Written Discourse: An Analytical Model for Treating Written Discourse as Ongoing Social Action. J Pragmat 2024;222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.12.017.
  36. Roth S, Clausen L, Žažar K. Guiding Distinctions: Observed with Social Systems Theory: An Introduction. Syst Res Behav Sci 2025;42. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3152.
  37. Jenkings KN, Lindwall O, Carlin AP, et al. Ethnomethodology and Ethnomethodological Conversation Analysis: An Orientation to Studies. The Routledge International Handbook of Ethnomethodology, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429323904-1.
  38. Maynard DW, Heritage J. The Ethnomethodology Program: Legacies and Prospects. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190854409.001.0001.
  39. Qadri RA. Dinamika Institusional dalam Implementasi Standar Akuntansi Entitas Nirlaba pada Masjid. Substansi: Sumber Artikel Akuntansi Auditing dan Keuangan Vokasi 2019;3. https://doi.org/10.35837/subs.v3i2.512.
  40. Qadri RA, Darmawan EE. E-Filing Implementation, Tax Compliance, and Technology Authority. Journal of Applied Accounting and Taxation 2021;6. https://doi.org/10.30871/jaat.v6i1.2822.
  41. Qadri RA, Sujoko S, Yustiani S, et al. Unmasking Causes and Providing Solutions for Government Financial Reporting Delays. Jurnal Riset dan Aplikasi: Akuntansi dan Manajemen 2024;7. https://doi.org/10.33795/jraam.v7i2.002.
  42. Sa’adah N, Wibawa KCS. Batasan Kewenangan Mengadili Sengketa Pajak antara Pengadilan Pajak dan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Masalah-Masalah Hukum 2023;52. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.52.1.2023.21-29.
  43. Widodo A. Communication Type in Trial: Ethnography Communication in Indonesian Criminal Courtroom Process. Journal of Intercultural Communication 2024;24. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v24i3.891.
  44. Widodo A. Courtroom Communication: Identification of the Communication Characteristics of Criminal Trials in Indonesian Courts. Front Commun (Lausanne) 2025;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1623307.
  45. Alkabiri MA. Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse. World Journal of English Language 2024;14. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n2p366.
  46. Goźdź-Roszkowski S. Language and Legal Judgments: Evaluation and Argument in Judicial Discourse. 2024. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003333302.
  47. Hanley C, Howell K, Teresa B. Power in the Court: Legal Argumentation and the Hierarchy of Credibility in Eviction Hearings. Socius 2024;10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231241266510.
  48. Bex F. Argumentation and Evidence. Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198859307.003.0014.
  49. Tran QA. Evaluation of Electronic Evidence and the Burden of Proof. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol. 27, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18572-4_9.
  50. Khurshid F, Veen M, Thompson J, et al. Navigating Thematic Analysis: Practical Strategies Grounded in Abductive Reasoning. Teach Learn Med 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2025.2475098.
  51. Kistruck GM, Slade Shantz A. Research on Grand Challenges: Adopting an Abductive Experimentation Methodology. Organization Studies 2022;43. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211044886.
  52. Ozuem W, Willis M, Howell K. Thematic Analysis Without Paradox: Sensemaking and Context. Qualitative Market Research 2022;25. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-07-2021-0092.
  53. Pattinson S. Using Thematic Template Analysis in Qualitative Innovation Research. Exploring Research Methodology and Research Design, 2025. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800880207.00025.
  54. Tambunan MRUD. Transfer Pricing Settlement in Indonesia: A Note for Tax Authority, Tax Court, and Taxpayers Based on the Tax Court Decisions. Bisnis & Birokrasi: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi 2022;29. https://doi.org/10.20476/jbb.v29i2.1306.
  55. Azzahid H, Fransiska L. Tinjauan Empiris Sengketa Transfer Pricing dengan Argumen Tanpa Motif Penghindaran Pajak di Pengadilan Pajak. Journal of Tax Policy, Economics, and Accounting 2025;3:107–19. https://doi.org/10.61261/taxpedia.v3i2.112.
  56. Ardiansyah A, Ichsan M. Analisis Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak Terkait Perhitungan Transfer Pricing (Studi Kasus antara DJP dan Perusahaan Multinasional). IBLAM Law Review 2024;4:224–40. https://doi.org/10.52249/ilr.v4i2.55.
  57. Arthuro Richie Gunawan, Edith Ratna Mulyaningrum. Mekanisme Peninjauan Kembali atas Putusan Pengadilan Pajak dalam Upaya Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik 2024;4:2662–70. https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v4i6.2849.
  58. Sasanti DN, Hetty Tri Kusuma Indah. Problematika Penyelesaian Sengketa di Pengadilan Pajak dalam Rangka Perwujudan Peradilan Sederhana, Cepat, dan Biaya Ringan. Reformasi Hukum 2022;26. https://doi.org/10.46257/jrh.v26i1.256.
  59. Novita W, Rahim R, Adrianto F. Sengketa Pajak dalam Perspektif Wajib Pajak (Studi Kasus Restitusi Pajak ADHI-IBG, KSO). Owner 2022;6. https://doi.org/10.33395/owner.v6i3.950.
  60. Agung BSSI, Nuryanah S. Tax Law Disputes over the Arm’s Length Principle in Affiliated Share Transfers. Corporate Law & Governance Review 2026;8:100. https://doi.org/10.22495/clgrv8i2p9.
  61. Prasetyo DT, Rahayu N. SWOT Analysis of the Implementation of Tax Dispute Administration and Electronic Trials (E-Tax Court) at the Indonesian Tax Court. Jurnal Public Policy 2024;10. https://doi.org/10.35308/jpp.v10i3.10317.
  62. Supriyadi MW. Administrasi Sengketa Pajak dan Persidangan Secara Elektronik (E-Tax Court) - Suatu Tinjauan Pustaka. Jurnal Pajak Indonesia (Indonesian Tax Review) 2024;8. https://doi.org/10.31092/jpi.v8i1.2694.
  63. Wibisana AW. Developing the Integrity of Corruption Crime Judges: Evidence in Indonesia. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478) 2023;12. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v12i9.3060.
  64. Samiri M, Kasim MA, Nonci N, et al. The Optimization of Judge Workload Management and Its Implications for Judicial Integrity and Quality. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia 2025;7. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v7i2.108-127.
  65. Kosař D, Šipulová K, Urbániková M. Informality and Courts: Uneasy Partnership. German Law Journal 2023;24. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2024.1.
  66. Smekal H. Informality as a Virtue: Exploring Positive Informal Judicial Institutions. German Law Journal 2023;24. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.92.
  67. Hamřík L. Actors of Informal Judicial Institutions and Practices. German Law Journal 2023;24. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.91.
  68. Steininger S. Talks, Dinners, and Envelopes at Nightfall: The Politicization of Informality at the Bundesverfassungsgericht. German Law Journal 2023;24. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.72.