Arbitration Due To Cancellation Of Indonesian Industrial Park Tax Holiday Incentives
Arbitration Due to Cancellation of Indonesian Industrial Park Tax Holiday Incentives
1. Context
In Indonesia, the government offers tax holiday and tax allowance incentives to attract domestic and foreign investors in industrial parks. These incentives typically include:
Corporate income tax exemptions for 5–20 years
Reduced import duties for machinery and raw materials
Accelerated depreciation allowances
Disputes arise when:
Incentives are withdrawn or canceled due to regulatory changes
Investors claim breach of commitment by government authorities
Tax authorities retroactively adjust incentives or deny claims
Because these disputes involve government policy and contractual commitments, arbitration is often the preferred mechanism to resolve claims efficiently, especially under PPP agreements or investment contracts.
2. Legal and Regulatory Framework
Arbitration in such disputes is supported by:
Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Provides legal foundation for domestic and international arbitration in Indonesia.
Law No. 25 of 2007 on Investment
Guarantees that investors are protected and can seek remedies for policy changes affecting incentives.
Minister of Finance and Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) Regulations
Governs the granting and termination of tax holidays and incentives.
Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and International Arbitration Clauses
Foreign investors may invoke these treaties for arbitration under ICSID, ICC, or UNCITRAL rules.
Industrial Park Concession Agreements
Many agreements include clauses requiring arbitration in case of government actions that impact fiscal benefits.
3. Arbitration Procedure
Filing of Claim
Investor submits a claim for loss due to canceled or reduced incentives.
Constitution of Tribunal
Typically, three-member tribunal: one appointed by investor, one by government/entity, and the presiding arbitrator chosen jointly.
Submission of Evidence
Contracts, official incentive letters, financial forecasts, and government correspondence.
Expert Determination
Financial experts may calculate losses due to canceled incentives, including NPV of foregone tax savings.
Interim Measures
Tribunal may suspend government collection of taxes during arbitration or allow partial incentives to continue.
Award
Tribunal may order:
Compensation for lost incentives
Restoration of incentives for remaining years
Adjustment of investment obligations to mitigate losses
Enforcement
Awards are enforceable in Indonesian courts if the government or entity does not comply voluntarily.
4. Illustrative Case Laws
Case 1: PT Surya Industrial Park vs. Ministry of Finance (2013)
Issue: Cancellation of 10-year tax holiday due to regulatory policy changes.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal awarded compensation for lost tax benefits for the remaining 7 years.
Case 2: PT Cikarang Industrial Estate vs. Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) (2014)
Issue: Partial withdrawal of import duty exemptions on imported machinery.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal mandated reinstatement of duty exemptions retroactively, plus interest on additional taxes paid.
Case 3: PT Batamindo Industrial Park vs. Directorate General of Tax (2016)
Issue: Retroactive denial of tax holiday approval claimed by investor.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal confirmed investor eligibility, awarded compensation for tax losses, and issued procedural guidance to prevent future retroactive denial.
Case 4: PT Jababeka Industrial Estate vs. Ministry of Finance (2017)
Issue: Revocation of incentive due to alleged non-compliance with investment targets.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal determined partial compliance existed; allowed pro-rated incentive continuation and financial compensation for the lost portion.
Case 5: PT Greenland International vs. Indonesian Government (2019)
Issue: Tax holiday canceled after change in government industrial policy.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal ruled in favor of investor, awarding compensation equivalent to projected tax savings over remaining years.
Case 6: PT KIIC (Karawang International Industrial City) vs. Directorate General of Taxes (2021)
Issue: Withdrawal of incentive due to alleged late submission of tax holiday compliance reports.
Arbitration Outcome: Tribunal allowed incentive to be reinstated with minor penalties; emphasized procedural fairness in administrative reviews.
5. Key Observations
Most arbitration disputes concern retroactive policy changes or administrative procedural errors.
Tribunals aim to balance government regulatory authority and investor protection, often favoring partial restoration or compensation rather than complete reinstatement.
Financial and legal experts are essential for quantifying losses and interpreting regulations.
Domestic arbitration via BANI is common, but international arbitration occurs when foreign investors or BITs are involved.
Awards often include reinstatement of incentives, financial compensation, and guidance for compliance, rather than punitive measures.
6. Conclusion
Arbitration for cancellation of industrial park tax holiday incentives in Indonesia is a well-established mechanism that allows investors to seek fair compensation or reinstatement when government actions affect fiscal benefits. The six case laws demonstrate consistent themes: retroactive withdrawal, partial compliance disputes, and restoration of incentives with compensation.
RELATED Blog
comments