<![CDATA[Bad debts are an unavoidable risk in business activities that involve credit sales; therefore, companies need to apply an appropriate accounting method so that financial statements present relevant information in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards and prevailing tax regulations. There are two main methods of accounting for bad debts, namely the allowance method and the direct write-off method, each of which has different implications for financial statement presentation and tax treatment. This study aims to analyze the comparison between the two methods and their impact on financial statements and tax treatment at PT Marga Nusantara Jaya, Manado Branch, using a qualitative approach with a descriptive research design. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, direct observation, documentation, and literature review, and were analyzed through data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The results indicate that the company's accounting treatment of bad debts has not been fully in accordance with PSAK 71, as losses are only recognized once a receivable is confirmed uncollectible, whereas its tax treatment complies with Article 6 paragraph (1) letter h of the Indonesian Income Tax Law. The comparison shows that the allowance method is more consistent with accounting principles because it produces a more accurate and stable financial statement presentation across periods, whereas the direct write-off method currently applied by the company is simpler and more aligned with prevailing tax regulations. Should the company adopt the allowance method in accordance with PSAK 71, this would give rise to a positive fiscal correction for the portion of the allowance that does not yet qualify as a deduction from gross income.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
