The plenary session no. 30/PUU-X/2012 about the review of act 28 of 2007 regarding Third Amendment Law 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) were held again at the Plenary Meeting Room of the Constitutional court building (MK), Wednesday (20/6). Session chaired by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD hearing expert testimony from the Government.

One government expert, who delivered his statement before the plenary of judges, is Professor of Constitutional Law and Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies (pusako) Andalas University, Saldi Isra. He provides information related to test the constitutionality of a petition filed on Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5d) UU KUP. The second article stipulates that fines imposed on the taxpayer if the taxpayer’s objection or appeal is rejected or granted in part.

Saldi say about it in accordance with Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution, taxes and other levies for the purposes of coercive state governed by law. This article can be interpreted according to Saldi that in principle there is no tax imposed for the people without the approval of representatives of the people. The involvement of representatives of the people is a limitation that the government should not arbitrarily assign the burden of taxes and of course give to the people or taxpayers. "In principle, the arrangement with the law can be interpreted as a part to ensure the rights of citizens or taxpayers not subject to taxes or other fees arbitrarily. When placed in the 1945 regulation is intended to meet the collateral meaning of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, "said Saldi about the basic principles of taxation.

Saldi proceed with these basic principles of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5d) UU KUP too vague to be said has been contradictory to the 1945. Petitioners’ argument stating precisely these two chapters are tested against the 1945 Constitution may only be justified if the two provisions at issue do not read in the context of the whole substance of the UU KUP or law related.

Furthermore, Saldi said tax collection system in Indonesia is a self-assessment that provides confidence for the taxpayer to calculate, pay, and the report itself should be the amount of tax payable in accordance with the provisions of the legislation in the field of taxation. When linked to the 1945, continued Saldi, self assessment in tax collection can be read as a protection for the rights of property under his control. "Taxpayers who are granted ‘authorized’ by law to calculate their own tax return and report to the IRS. Well, if he counts himself, where he later would logically objected to what he counted himself?" said Saldi rhetoric.

Because taxpayers are given "authority" then that is not used for malicious intent precisely regulated by certain parties about the "threat" of the administration as contained in Article 29 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5d) of the Act KUP. "Once again, let us imagine, if one day the majority of taxpayers to filing an objection with the purpose of delaying payment of taxes, this country will experience paralysis acceptance. In that context, the presence of Article 25 paragraph (9), Article 25 paragraph (5d) KUP Law should be seen as anticipatory measures the legislators," said Saldi.

The same thing also delivered the next government experts, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Executive Director of the Indonesian Export Financing Agency, I Gde Made Erata. In his explanation Erata said, UU KUP which has experienced three times the change has an important foundation, namely the balance of rights and obligations between taxpayers and tax officials. In the third change of UU KUP principle of legal certainty, fairness, and simplicity in the UU KUP retained.

Discussing the same thing as Saldi, Erata said self-assessment system gives credence to the taxpayer to report the amount of tax payable. Taxpayers were given the opportunity to raise objections but it is expected before delivering a written objection, in accordance with Article 25 (3a), the taxpayer has paid at least the amount of taxes in accordance with that approved in the final discussion of the results of the examination.

If the articles proposed to be tested by the applicant do not exist, add Erata, there will be efforts to delay payment for 30 months by the taxpayer on purpose because it is not penalized. "The purpose of these verses, the purpose of this administrative sanctions, not with the intent to obstruct the taxpayer wishes to seek justice, but rather provide a sense of fairness to taxpayers who have faithfully carry out tax obligations," said Erata explain the real purpose of article Provisions are about to be canceled by the Applicant. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)