<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the status of the Nominal List as evidence in disputes at the Tax Court, specifically regarding the conflict between formal administrative defects and the substantiation of the material truth of Promotional Expenses. The research employs a normative-juridical method, utilizing both statutory and case-based approaches through an analysis of five Tax Court rulings: PUT-006323.15/2018/PP/M.XIA, PUT-005707.15/2019/PP/M.VIIIA, PUT-011363.15/2020/PP/M.XIVA, PUT-006886.15/2020/PP/M.XIIIA, and PUT-003087.15/2023/PP/M.XVIA. The analysis reveals that while the Nominal List serves a crucial function as both an administrative and evidentiary instrument, defects therein do not automatically result in the disallowance of Promotional Expenses. The Panel of Judges has applied varying approaches, ranging from a formalistic stance—treating the Nominal List as an absolute prerequisite—to a "substance over form" approach, which allows taxpayers to substantiate the reality of transactions through invoices, bills, contracts, proof of payment, and other supporting documents. These differing rationes decidendi indicate an absence of a uniform standard regarding the legal consequences of defects in the . Consequently, there is a need for consistent evidentiary practices that treat administrative defects as factors influencing the burden of proof, rather than as automatic grounds for disregarding the material truth of Promotional Expenses.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
