Act 28/2007 concerning Amendment to Law Number 6 Year 1983 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures (Tax Law) petitioned for review is materially to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (29/3). PT Hutahaean represented by Harangan Wilmar Hutahaean Applicant recorded a case with the number 30/PUU-X/2012.

In a preliminary trial, Petitioner, represented by Andris Basril legal counsel, said the Petitioner is a taxpayer that unexamined by the fiscus and has received a tax assessment letters Underpayment of Corporate Income Tax in 2008, who felt aggrieved over their constitutional rights provisions of Article 25 paragraph ( 9) and Article 27 paragraph (5) letter d Law on Taxation. The applicant felt that their constitutional rights as guaranteed by Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution violated by the enactment of these articles. Petitioner is a taxpayer who unexamined by the fiscus and has received an assessment Pay Less Corporate Income Tax.

"The applicant responded to the findings as taxpayers and tax authorities refute these findings and if the applicant uses his right to file an objection petition was hindered by the provisions of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5) letter d a quo law," said Andris Assembly before the Constitutional Court headed by Justice Anwar Usman.

In addition, the Applicant felt aggrieved by the provisions of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5) letter d law limiting a quo for a taxpayer who has tax disputes subject to administrative sanctions such as fines paid before an objection filed subject to administrative sanctions. "The sanctions are administrative fines as much as 50% of the amount of tax deducted by the decision objected to the tax had been paid before filing objections and subject to administrative sanctions such as fines as much as 100% of the amount of taxes based on the Decision of Appeals reduced the tax payments have been paid before filing the objection, assess the applicant's case is too excessive and violated constitutional rights, "he explained.

In petitum, Petitioner asks the Assembly because of the Constitutional Court accept and grant the petition in its entirety. "To declare that Article 25 Paragraph (9) Throughout the phrase, 'In the event that the objection is rejected or the taxpayer is granted in part, taxpayers subject to administrative sanctions such as fines amounting to 50% of the amount of tax by virtue of objections that have been reduced by taxes paid prior to object", contrary with Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), and Article 28H Paragraph (2), Constitution - Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, and states do not have binding legal force," he explained.

Responding to the petition the petitioner, the Constitutional Court Usman Anwar said that the Petitioner to distinguish between the term phrase, chapter, and verse. In petitum, continued Usman, the Petitioner requested throughout the phrase, but the application of the clause. Anwar also requested that the applicant improve the authority and the legal position. "There is a difference between the articles are used as a touchstone. You must be consistent. Petitioners also have seen inconsistencies on the part of the legal position. Brother sat down as private legal entities, so I'd reiterate the legal position. But in posita as individual citizens, re-examined in order to be consistent, "he advised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati suggested that the applicant improve the format of the petition and explain the reasons for constitutional rights violations that are guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. "Then in the petition, you, there are things that are concrete cases. Your clients have the a quo article. So, try testing the norm in the Constitutional Court Act, do not try cases concrete. However, the concrete case it could be the reason in his case and sat posita, MK prosecute article paragraph, the phrase, the norm in the law but did not prosecute the case of concrete, "explained Maria.

The applicant was given 14 days to make improvements to the petition. The next session of the hearing requested repairs. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)