The Constitutional Court (MK) held the third trial in Case 30/PUU-XI/2013 about reviewing Act on Local Taxes and Levies, Tuesday (30/4). This session heard the testimony of the Government and Parliament-related cases filed three companies providing infrastructure and facilities for a fitness center, namely PT Exertainment Indonesia, PT Fitindo Sehat Sempurna , and PT Adhia Relaksindo as well as the users of facilities and infrastructure at the fitness center.

Litigation Director of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, Abdi Mualimin that a representative of the government in this trial opening statement delivered to the Government of the petition. Related to the legal standing of the Petitioners, Mualimin said that the Government considers the applicant does not have the right to sue (legal standing). The problem, Mualimin, the Government saw the Petitioners did not suffer losses due to constitutional Article 42 paragraph (2) letter I of Act 28 of 2009. The Government considers the losses suffered by the Petitioner is not caused such article as in Article 2 paragraph (4) and Article 42 paragraph (3) of Act 28 of 2009 has clearly mentioned that the collection of taxes and levies on the fitness center (business Petitioners, red) by the local government under the authority of local governments established by local regulations.

"The Government believes the applicant does not lose constitutional. Therefore, the Government of His Majesty begged the judges of the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing so it is fitting for His Majesty the Constitutional Assembly declared the petition of the applicant cannot be accepted," said Mualimin.

While the principal related petition, Mualimin said the policy-setting fitness center as object Local Tax is not a new thing. Mualimin continued that in other countries such as the United States, health club and fitness center taxable and regional tax as part of a local sales tax.

One of the policies of the Act is to expand the tax base by setting the fitness center or fitness center as an object of Entertainment Tax. "Determination is performed in addition to considering the ability of the insurer to pay taxes, also saw practice runs in the international world. With the expansion of the tax base is expected to increase local taxing power efforts to increase the role of the Revenue and Expenditure Budget significantly," said Mualimin.

Meanwhile Yahdil Abdi Harahap (Member of Commission III) delivered opening statement representing House of People Representatives. Yahdil say similar things like that conveyed Party Government. He says all kinds of entertainment, including a fitness center, subject to special tax as a local tax extension object. It was intended to raise revenue in order to create local self-reliance and service improvement. "Each region has the right and duty to regulate and manage affairs administration. For the regional government, local governments the right to impose levies to the public throughout the conditions set forth in the law," said Yahdil.

In addition, understanding the fitness center Yahdil said in the article that should be understood from the applicant petitioned the need of a special place and free of charge like a spa and steam bath. Thus, further Yahdil, according to the provisions of Article 42 of Law no. 28 of 2009 is due to the implementation Entertainment Tax free. "Therefore, there is no discrimination against the type of activities carried out in the fitness center," said Yahdil that at the end of his statement asked the Court to reject the petition of the applicant in its entirety. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)