Review trial of Act 36/2008 about fourth amendment over Act 7/1983 about income tax Article 23 verse 2, was held in Constitutional Court (MK), on Tuesday (8/26) at MK Plenary Room.

In the Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi-led trial, Plaintiff represented by Julianti Setiyoningsih has fixed their lawsuit as advised by Justice in the previous trial. One of the revisions is to remove phrase “accept and/or grant” in petitum to just “grant”.

Aside from it, PT Cotrans Asia also stressed norms contradiction, happened presumably between Article 23 verse (2) UU PPh to other Acts in which might as well determine sailing service.

MK also validated Plaintiff’s evidences, of which will be deliberated to Justices Consultative meeting (RPH). “You have attached written evidences from P1 to P7. We accept the evidences and your application will be deliberated in the RPH,” Justice Ahmad Fadlil said.

In the previous trial, According to the Applicant, Dir. Gen. Tax of Finance Ministry uses the phrase of “other kinds of services”, so the tax may be applied on such income. In Applicant’s opinion, his kind of service is not included to “other kinds of services” due to the distinct type of occupancy. His service should be referring to Sailing Act only.

Moreover, the Applicant sees the phrase “other kinds of services” in Article 23 verse (2) UU PPh has overlapped others Acts which also regulate specified service, thus it trespasses the principle of law formation. Besides, prior to the revision, none of the article determines anyone to adjust taxation over “other services”, but only to determine the taxation subject’   

The Article 23 verse (2) UU PPh says:

“Further Regulation of other services as meant in verse (1) letter c number 2 is determined after Finance Minister’s Law”

Article 23 letter c number 2 determines, payment of engineer service, management service, construction service, consultant service, and other services are subjected to income tax as determined in Article 21, taxed by obliged side as much as 2% of bruto.   

Therefore, the Applicant asks MK to declare the phrase “Other kinds of Services” in the Article unconstitutional as along as interpreted without regarding other Acts which classify particular sector. (Bagas Febrantoro/Hanifah/kun)