---

Applicant’s Attorneys Furqanto and Dhananjaya (left-right) delivered petition points in preliminary session of Tax Collection Act, on Wednesday (24/2) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Employer Frederick Rachmat sues Article 34 (3) Act No. 19 Year 1997 of Tax Collection with Warrant (UU Penagihan Pajak). He assesses the provision only regulated the implementation of seize warrant (Surat Perintah Penyanderaan).  

His attorney Furqanto delivered petition arguments in preliminary session of Tax Collection Act, on Wednesday (24/2) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Furqanto explained that the Article regulated complaint against the implementation of seize warrant. The complaint merely aims at warrant implementation, he added.

“The complaint is not against case substance, which is Applicant’s tax obligation. Whereas, the issue of tax liability and tax collection ways needs to look for more conducive ways,” said Furqanto.  

Article 34 (3) Act a quo stated, “(3) Hostaged Tax Bearer Party who may file complaint against hostage implementation to District Court” (“(3) Penanggung Pajak yang disandera dapat mengajukan gugatan terhadap pelaksanaan penyanderaan hanya kepada Pengadilan Negeri”).

Frederick is a Chief Commissioner of PT. Dharma Budhi Lestari who listed as tax bearer since October 26, 2015 that ‘seized’ by South Bekasi Tax Office (KPP Pratama Bekasi Selatan).

The Applicant has paid more than 50% of the tax bill however he is still ‘hostaged’, according to Furgianto. “Therefore, the Applicant willing to file judicial review petition against Act of Tax Collection,” said him.      

The Applicant also concerned on the phrase ‘sincerity’ (‘itikad baik’) in Article 33 (1). He assessed that he already had sincerity by paying the tax bill more than 50%, therefore the seizure wasn’t supposed to be done.

The Applicant argued that the seizure was the deprivation of liberty, therefore it regarded as object in which protection can be requested through pretrial institutions. Protection from seizure was for avoiding tax official’s arbitrariness, he added.

The Applicant argued that the inclusion of seizure into pretrial object was for settling seizure implementation problems quickly.

Towards Applicant’s arguments, Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar questioned on the process of seizure that experienced by the Applicant. “There are some requirements for tax seizure,” said Patrialis.

Meanwhile Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Applicant to merge petition objects and note review object in petition arguments (posita). He also advised the Applicant to elaborate petition arguments. Panel Head Suhartoyo assessed that Applicant’s petition was more related to private legal matter or civil matter.

“Unpaid tax is indeed private legal matter or civil matter.  Default party is always file complaint to civil court. Why it include in seizure in which forceful attempt usually done in criminal court,” said Suhartoyo. (Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Prasetyo Adi N) 

---