Court Stated Act on Land and Building Tax Constitutional

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the application of Act 12/1985 on Land and Building Tax, as amended by Act No. 12 of 1994 on Land and Building Tax. This verdict was pronounced by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh.Mahfud MD, assisted by eight constitutional justices on Tuesday (17 / 1), at the Plenary Court Room. Application to the case with this 77/PUU-VIII/2010 Number filed by PT. West Irian Fishing Industries Limited. Dwi Bina Utama, PT. Irian Marine Product Development, Mikio Hommura, President Director of PT. Irian Product Development, PT. Alfa Kurnia, Management Association of Indonesian Shrimp Catching Entrepreneurs (HPPI), as well as Fisheries Society Archipelago (MPN).

In the Court’s opinion read by Hamdan Zoelva, the Petitioners argued that Article 4 paragraph (1) of the United Nations create legal uncertainty and contradictory to the 1945 UN levy applied to all business sectors Fisheries. According to the Court, if the article does not apply to fishing companies, then it will only lead to uncertainty and injustice. "In fact, lead to discrimination because the phrase ‘to benefit the earth’ as provided for in Article 4 paragraph (1) of the United Nations not only imposed on fishing companies, but also to companies engaged in other businesses that benefit the earth," said Hamdan.

According to the Court, said Hamdan, the establishment of the United Nations Act and the Fisheries Act is the mandate of the constitution as provided for in Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution which states, "Taxes and other levies for the purposes of coercive state governed by law". Therefore, the 1945 Constitution has to distinguish between taxes and levies, which are both a source of state revenue to financing development in order to advance the general welfare as stipulated in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution. Tax according to Article 1 paragraph 1 of Act 6/1983 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures as last amended by Act 16 of 2009 is the mandatory contribution to the state that are owed by individuals or bodies that are enforceable under law, by not getting the rewards directly and used for purposes of state for the overall prosperity of the people, while the charges (non-tax revenues) according to Article 1 paragraph 1 of Act 20/1997 on State Revenue is all Central Government revenues are not derived of tax revenue. "Based on the above description, according to the Court there is a fundamental difference between the taxes and levies. People who pay taxes do not receive reciprocal services directly from the state, while the people who pay the fees received direct feedback from the State, "he said.

Regarding the Petitioners’ argument that the Petitioners have claimed unequal treatment before the law because other companies that also benefit the earth, including the sea, are not subject to the tax, Hamdan argued that even if true arguments of the Petitioners a quo petition (quad non), that case is not related to the constitutionality of the enactment of norms of Law petitioned for review. "But the argument of the Petitioners’ petition is an implementation of the application of the Act. Based on all these considerations, the Court found Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Act is not contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, "Hamdan explained.

The conclusion was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, the Court concluded that the Petitioners have legal status (legal standing) to apply. "The argument of the Petitioners’ petition is groundless according to law," said Mahfud. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 | 16:36 WIB 145