The trial continued reviewing Act 28/2007 concerning Amendment to Law Number 6 Year 1983 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures (Taxation Law) held back the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (6/6). 

PT Hutahaean represented by Wilmar Harangan Hutahaean Applicant recorded a case with the number 30/PUU-X/2012.Government in the trial examination of witnesses and experts beragendakan, represented by Director General of Taxation by Fuad Rahmany questioned the constitutional rights of the disadvantaged on the applicability of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5) letter d Law on Taxation. According to Fuad, UU KUP has a strategic position in the rights and obligations of taxation and regulation to the general provisions for the rights and obligations of the tax in this country. 

"UU KUP is the main rules for the regulation of rights and obligations in the field of taxation. UU KUP based on changes in equity, improving service to taxpayers create legal certainty and an increase in voluntary compliance for taxpayers who ultimately increase tax revenues from the sector. Therefore the law is set in a clear and firm and not give another interpretation opportunities, "he explained in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court is headed by Deputy Chairman Achmad Sodiki. 

According to Fuad, an arrangement sanctioned in law is a way of lawmakers to force the norms contained in the Act can be complied with by the community. Similarly, in the provisions it was tested by the applicant. "It can not be interpreted independently or in isolation, but must be interpreted as a whole," he explained. On that occasion, the Petitioner filed a witness among them Ali Kadir. In his statement, Ali said in a court of appeals relating to tax it difficult for the taxpayer. 

"The conditions are specified precisely to change. And with those changes so formal, which has legal consequences if not met, and then it does not include the caveat, "he explained. 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 UU KUP. 

The applicant felt that their constitutional rights as guaranteed by Article 28D Paragraphs (1), Article 28G Paragraphs (1), and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution violated by the enactment of the articles a quo. Petitioner is a taxpayer who unexamined by the fiscus and has received an assessment Pay Less Corporate Income Tax. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)