---

Constitutional Court held a verdict trial on judicial review of General Provisions Act on Taxation Procedures filed by PT Hutahaean, Thursday (29/8). In the ruling was read directly by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar, the Court rejected the petition stating in its entirety.

Court assumes Petition no legal grounds that the application is rejected entirely. “Conclusion, based on the assessment of the facts and law as described above, the Court concluded that the Court has authority to hear the petition a quo, Petitioners have legal status (legal standing) to apply for a quo, the petition was not unreasonable under the law," said Akil read the conclusion.

Previous Applicants assume the losses neglected constitutional rights guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph ( 1 ) , Article 28G ( 1 ) , and Article 28H Paragraph ( 2 ) of the 1945 Constitution . The loss occurred because of the application of Article 25 paragraph (9) and Article 27 paragraph (5d) Act 28/2007 on General Provisions Administration of Taxation.

As known, in carrying out his official duties, private legal entity as the applicant submits tax returns on the basis of self-assessment in the tax period or tax year. That further tax authorities (tax collector) perform tax audits of applicant. From the results obtained by the tax authorities on the amount of the tax payment amount turned out differently from what has been reported of a dispute between the applicant to applicant with tax authorities.

Furthermore Petitioners as taxpayers and tax authorities respond to the findings refute the findings. However, if the applicant feels like to exercise his right to appeal will be barred by the provisions of Article 25 paragraph ( 9 ) and Article 27 paragraph ( 5 ) letter d General Provisions Act Tax Procedures.

Both provisions were sued by the applicant in full reads as follows.

Article 25 paragraph (9)

In case the taxpayer objection is rejected or partially granted, taxpayers subject to administrative sanctions such as fines by 50 % (fifty percent) of the amount of tax deducted by the decision objected to the tax has been paid before filing an objection

Article 27 paragraph (5) letter d

In case the application is denied or granted the appeal in part , taxpayers subject to administrative sanctions such as fines amounting to 100 % (one hundred percent) of the amount of tax deducted by the Appeal Decision tax payments that have been paid before filing an objection .

Both of these provisions by Petitioner have restricted a taxpayer who has a tax dispute as subject to various sanctions first. Petitioner also feels aggrieved because of the potential obligation to pay a sum of money as a sanction, other than the tax liability to be paid. It creates a feeling of dread when the applicant filed an appeal request form and appeal because of the potential threat of sanctions.

Court Opinion

However, the Court held that the provision in the second chapter of the applicant sued precisely the implementation of the mandate of Article 23A of the Constitution of 1945, which applies to all persons or entities without discrimination and is not intended to cause fear. In addition, both the article also does not eliminate it provides legal certainty and fairness for all taxpayers. Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution itself states taxes and other levies for the purposes of coercive state governed by law.

In order to carry out the mandate of Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution and realize one of the national objectives of promoting the general welfare will require sustainable funding sources, the main source of revenue comes from taxes and the constitutional mandate has been implemented with the establishment of Tax Procedures Law.

In addition , the Court also found when the taxpayer , including the applicant , through legal means such as tax objection instrument or by other means of trying to avoid or delay the payment of taxes and that sort of thing in the absence of sanctions , it would eliminate the tax nature as liabilities or levies by state coercive . Therefore, the Court held the petition no legal grounds. ( Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh )

---