Act 36/2008 about Income Tax (UU PPh) is being reviewed for once again by Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (21/7). The lawsuit, registered upon number 57/PUU-XII/2014, is filed by Supriyono, a citizen from Tangerang, Banten.

In the preliminary hearing, the plaintiff stands without accompanied by any attorney, he fusses that his constitutional rights were harmed by the applied Article 4 verse (2) letter e UU PPh, in which says “Below type of incomes are subject to final-characterized tax:…(e) Other typical incomes, determined after Government Law”. According to the Plaintiff, the Article allows the government to pull taxes over wide interpretation and may convey other Articles to be opposing each other. Moreover, the plaintiff feels that the regulation is deceiving.       

The Plaintiff sees the regulation smears false interpretation to damage his constitutional rights. The error is contained in the Government Law (PP) 46/2014 which distinguishes below Rp 4,800,000,000-income firm and upper Rp 4,800,000,000-income firm. The regulation is discriminating because upper-level citizens could sum up their correct taxes, hence the tax is not final and may be corrected periodically, according to the Plaintiff. Otherwise, below-level citizens may be subject to final taxes and could not get their loss compensation. Whereas, according to the plaintiff, bankrupted firm must be freed from any taxes while the loss may be compensated and paid after foreseeable income.       

With the arguments, Plaintiff asks MK to grant his lawsuit of Judicial Review over Article 4 verse (2) letter e Act 36/2008 (UU PPh), as it is opposing 1945 Constitution.

Assembly of Justices which led by Justice Wahiddudin Adams, accompanied by Justice Maria Farida Indrati and Anwar Usman suggest to revise the pleading. According to the Justices, the Plaintiff stresses Government Law (PP) 13/2013 as acting Article 4 verse (2) letter e UU PPh. “It must be focused, you excerpted PP not UU (Acts). In Posita you must explain your loss, not just the implication,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Maria explains that the disadvantage must be explained to further description. “What are you disadvantaged by? It is like you are whining over PP, if that so you came to wrong address. It must be filed to MA (Supreme Court),” She explained.(Lulu Anjarsari/mh/kun)