Reassessing the Matching Principle’s Relevance in Recognizing Staff Bonus Expenses in Corporate Tax Disputes
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the application of the matching principle in the context of tax disputes related to the charging of employee bonus costs and to assess the appropriateness of recognizing these costs as deductible expenses based on positive tax law in Indonesia. This study uses a normative-dogmatic legal approach that aims to interpret, explain, and systematize positive legal norms governing the recognition of tax expenses in the application of the matching principle. The results of the study show that the recognition of bonus expenses as accrued expenses better reflects economic substance than recognition as provisions, because the payment obligation has arisen from employee services that have been provided and can be reliably measured. This approach is in line with the substance over form principle, which places economic reality above administrative form. The court ruled that the obligation to pay bonuses had fulfilled the elements of certainty in terms of amount and recipient and was supported by evidence of payment realization and Article 21 tax deductions in the following year.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Ball, Ryan T, and Peter D Easton. “Dissecting Earnings Recognition Timeliness.” Journal of Accounting Research 51, no. 5 (2013): 1099–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.12018.
Barker, Richard, Stephen H Penman, Thomas J Linsmeier, and Stephen Cooper. “Moving the Conceptual Framework Forward: Accounting for Uncertainty.” Contemporary Accounting Research 37, no. 1 (2020): 322–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12585.
Basu, Sudipta, Thomas G Canace, Mark Cecchini, and Yi Liang. “The Impact of Conservatism and Supply Chain Finance on Bad Debt Expense.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4328778.
Canace, Thomas G, Scott B Jackson, Tao Ma, and Aaron F Zimbelman. “Accounting for R&D: Evidence and Implications*.” Contemporary Accounting Research 39, no. 3 (2022): 2212–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12780.
Chan, Louis K, Josef Lakonishok, and Theodore Sougiannis. “The Stock Market Valuation of Research and Development Expenditures.” The Journal of Finance 56, no. 6 (2001): 2431–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00411.
Costa, Fábio M d., Carol Y Liu, Gina C Rosa, and Samuel L Tiras. “The Effects of Fair Value on the Matching of Revenues and Expenses: The Case of Asset Revaluations.” The International Journal of Accounting 55, no. 04 (2020): 2050019. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1094406020500195.
Dichev, Ilia D, and Vicki W Tang. “Matching and the Changing Properties of Accounting Earnings Over the Last 40 Years.” The Accounting Review 83, no. 6 (2008): 1425–60. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.6.1425.
Fera, Pietro. “The Effectiveness of the Matching Principle in Different Financial Reporting Systems and Its Impact on the Quality of Earnings.” Corporate Ownership and Control 16, no. 3 (2019): 129–42. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv16i3art11.
Fera, Pietro, Nicola Moscariello, and Ettore Cinque. “A Renewed Interest on the Fundamentals of Accounting: The Impact of the Matching ‘Principle’ on Earning Attributes,” 2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77266.
Fittipaldi, Edoardo, and Elena Timoshina. “Theory of Custom, Dogmatics of Custom, Policy of Custom: On the Threefold Approach of Polish‐Russian Legal Realism.” Ratio Juris 30, no. 1 (2016): 105–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12137.
Francis, Jennifer, Ryan LaFond, Per Olsson, and Katherine Schipper. “Costs of Equity and Earnings Attributes.” The Accounting Review 79, no. 4 (2004): 967–1010. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.967.
Gerber, Marthinus C, Aurona Gerber, and Alta v. d. Merwe. “Using Formal Ontologies for the Development of Consistent and Unambiguous Financial Accounting Standards,” 2011. https://doi.org/10.5220/0003658404190424.
Gestel, Rob v. “Quality, Methodology, and Politics in Doctrinal Legal Scholarship.” Law and Method, 2023. https://doi.org/10.5553/rem/.000070.
Gestel, Rob v., and Hans‐W. Micklitz. “Why Methods Matter in European Legal Scholarship.” European Law Journal 20, no. 3 (2013): 292–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12049.
Hayoun, Shaul. “The Semio-Logic of Financial Accounting.” Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal 31, no. 7 (2018): 2055–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-06-2017-2977.
Kim, Sangwan. “Cross-Sectional Variation in Revenue-Expense Relation and Cost of Equity.” Managerial Finance 44, no. 11 (2018): 1311–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-06-2016-0171.
Krishnan, Gopal V, Emma‐Riikka Myllymäki, and Neerav Nagar. “Does Financial Reporting Quality Vary Across Firm Life Cycle?” Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 48, no. 5–6 (2020): 954–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12508.
Marshall, Dara, Nancy C Feng, Mary Fischer, Renee Flasher, Amy F Holmes, Carol M Jessup, Louella Moore, Daniel G Neely, and Terry K Patton. “Response to the GASB’s Invitation to Comment on Revenue and Expense Recognition: Project No. 4-6i.” Journal of Governmental & Nonprofit Accounting 7, no. 1 (2018): 97–103. https://doi.org/10.2308/ogna-52328.
Moscariello, Nicola, Fabio L Rosa, Francesca Bernini, and Pietro Fera. “Revenue-Expense Versus Asset-Liability Model.” Meditari Accountancy Research 28, no. 2 (2020): 277–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-04-2019-0465.
Myers, Linda A, Roy Schmardebeck, Timothy A Seidel, and Michael D Stuart. “The Impact of Managerial Discretion in Revenue Recognition: A Reexamination*.” Contemporary Accounting Research 39, no. 3 (2022): 2130–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12775.
Nofita, Efi, and Siti Nuryanah. “Benefit Test Analysis on Intra-Group Services Transactions in Indonesia,” 2022. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.27-7-2021.2316837.
Rahayu, Hastanti A, Neni Pancawati, and Syarifudin Syarifudin. “Tax Court Decision on the Primary Dispute of Export Value-Added Tax Base.” Berkala Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia 7, no. 2 (2022): 160–73. https://doi.org/10.20473/baki.v7i2.32422.
Santoso, Muhammad R. “Matching Cost Against Revenue at Royalty Expenses.” The Indonesian Accounting Review 11, no. 2 (2021): 171–85. https://doi.org/10.14414/tiar.v11i2.2558.
Schipper, Katherine, Catherine M Schrand, Terry Shevlin, and T J Wilks. “Reconsidering Revenue Recognition.” Accounting Horizons 23, no. 1 (2009): 55–68. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2009.23.1.55.
Silalahi, Heriantonius, and Budi Kurnia. “Fringe Benefits in Tax Law: Matching Principle and Tax Justice Perspective.” Ilomata International Journal of Tax and Accounting 4, no. 4 (2023): 684–702. https://doi.org/10.52728/ijtc.v4i4.870.
Smieliauskas, Wally. “Principles‐Based Reasoning About Accounting Estimates.” Accounting Perspectives 11, no. 4 (2012): 259–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12001.
Sutton, David, Carolyn J Cordery, and Tony v. Zijl. “The Purpose of Financial Reporting: The Case for Coherence in the Conceptual Framework and Standards.” Abacus 51, no. 1 (2015): 116–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12042.
Syadzwina, Dhifa N, Dwi C Octavianus, M A Amrullah, Fendi Setyawan, and Ahmad Subhan. “Characteristics of Legal Science as Sui Generis.” Nurani Jurnal Kajian Syari Ah Dan Masyarakat 23, no. 2 (2023): 261–74. https://doi.org/10.19109/nurani.v23i2.20165.
Taborda, Daniel, and João Sousa. “The Accrual Accounting Principle and Its Implications for Portuguese Tax Courts Decisions.” Accounting Economics and Law - A Convivium 13, no. 4 (2020): 539–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0030.
Vachev, Valeri. “On the Purpose and Functions of Legal‑dogmatic Research (Continental Tradition).” Si 100 (2023). https://doi.org/10.31338/2544-3135.si.2024-100.18.
Zimmerman, Aleksandra B, and Robert L Bloom. “The Matching Principle Revisited.” Accounting Historians Journal 43, no. 1 (2016): 79–119. https://doi.org/10.2308/0148-4184.43.1.79.