---

Machine serves as a tool of production, so it does not fall into the category of motor vehicles. Moreover, operating heavy equipment does not use public roads. Therefore, the Motor Vehicle Tax (PKB) and Tax on Motor Vehicles (BBNKB) of heavy equipment is not appropriate. The taxation of heavy equipment could have an impact on the potential high cost hinder national development.

 

That was the subject matter of judicial review application of Act No. 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and Levies (Act PDRD). Petition filed by seven directors of the company, namely PT. Bukit Makmur Mandiri Utama, PT. Pamapersada Nusantara (PAMA), PT. Manage Self Success, PT. Ricobana Abadi, PT. Nipindo Prima Engineering, PT. Lobunta Golden Kingdom, and PT. United Arkato.

 

The materials tested PDRD legislation, namely Article 1 point 13 along the phrase "... including tools and large equipment are in operation using the wheels and the motor and not permanently attached ...". Then Article 5 paragraph (2), as long as the phrase "... including heavy equipment and major appliances ...", and Article 6 paragraph (4) and Article 12 paragraph (2).

 

The petitioners are represented by legal counsel, Nurdin Ali et al, on Wednesday (2/15/2012) afternoon, again present in the hearing of the Constitutional Court (MK).The trial of case Number 1/PUU-X/2012 the improvement agenda request was carried out by the Constitutional Court Panel consisting Achmad Sodiki (panel chairman), accompanied by members of the panel M. Akil Mochtar and Hamdan Zoelva.

 

 

 

In front of the Constitutional Court Panel, Ali Nurdin deliver improvements to the application as recommended in the Panel proceedings before the Constitutional Court. "Basically we fully accept input from the Panel of Judges is noble," said Ali Nurdin. Broadly speaking, the repair request involves three things. First was editorial improvement of the sentence. Second, the article in the 1945 Constitution which served as a touchstone. "Regarding touchstone, we focus on Article 28D Paragraphs (1)," he continued. Third were the petition editorial improvements and provisions.

 

Before concluding the hearing, the panel endorsed the evidence that Petitioner carried a P-1 through P-7. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)

---