The Petitioner’s attorney Heru Widodo delivering the revision points to the petition in the judicial review of Law on the General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP), Thursday (9/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material review hearing of Law No. 6 of 1983 on the General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP) as amended by aw No. 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 6 of 1983 on the General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP) on Thursday (9/7/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 41/PUU-XVIII/2020 was petitioned by Taufik Surya Dharma, a former superintendent of PT United Coal Indonesia (PT UCI), which was declared bankrupt by the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court in 2015.

The Petitioner’s attorney Heru Widodo explained that the Petitioner changed his identity to “The Petitioner filed [the petition] as an individual who no longer has the right to manage” on page 5 points 2.3, 2.4, and so on. Heru said that in point 2.5 on page 6, it is detailed as the loss of right to manage the bankrupt PT UCI based on the provision of Article 24 of the Bankruptcy Law and the company’s statutes/bylaw, especially Article 10 number 8b. The Petitioner removed Article 2 paragraph (6) from the list of norms they challenge. He stated that he challenges Article 32 paragraph (2) of the KUP Law.

Also read: Tax Debt on Insolvent Company Drives Petitioner to Challenge Law on Tax Provisions and Procedures 

In the preliminary hearing pefore the presiding Justice Daniel Yusmic P Foekh, attorney Heru Widodo said he was aggrieved by the enactment of Article 2 paragraph (6) and Article 32 paragraph (2) of the KUP Law. He believes that both articles had been used by the South Jakarta Large Taxpayers Office One as a basis to collect taxes from PT UCI, which was personally charged to the Petitioner at the amount of Rp193,625,721,483 only because the company’s tax identification number (NPWP) of the bankrupt PT UCI had not been deleted. The company was declared bankrupt on a court decision that has permanent legal force and all bankruptcy assets have been settled by a curator.

Heru also said the Petitioner’s objection was justified because, in addition to being charged with a tax bill on an insolvent company, the Petitioner received a letter from the Large Taxpayers Office One that authorized Bank BCA of Kuningan branch to disclose the Petitioner’s account balance held by the bank on December 26, 2019. Consequently, Petitioner’s personal assets could be forcibly seized to pay off the PT UCI’s corporate tax debt even though when its bankruptcy was filed for, the taxpayers office’s request for asset distribution had been granted by the supervisory judge and the tax debt had been paid by the curator in the amount according to the judge’s ruling.

In addition, claims regarding rights and obligations on bankruptcy assets should be addressed to the curator, not to the Petitioner. This has been affirmed in Article 26 paragraph (1) of No. 38 of 2004, which states it applies not excluding demands for the management and settlement of bankrupt assets to settle corporate debts such as tax debts. Moreover, a curator is a tax guarantor and taxpayers for the bankrupt company. In accordance with Article 1 number 3 of Law No. 28 of 2007 which reads, "Taxpayer means the individual or entity, including the tax payers, tax withholders, and tax collector, who has the right and obligation of taxation in accordance with the provision of the taxation legislation." (Utami/AL/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 7/10/2020