Court Approves Withdrawal of Petition on Income Tax Provisions
Image

Hendrawarman (center), the Petitioner’s legal counsel, at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations, Thursday (5/25/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) granted the request to withdraw the material judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (HPP Law). Heriyansyah, a factory worker residing in Bekasi Regency, filed the case No. 38/PUU-XXI/2023.

“[The Court] declared the petition for case No. 38/PUU-XXI/2023 on hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (State Gazette No. 246 of 2021, Supplement No. 6736 to the State Gazette) against the 1945 Constitution withdrawn,” said plenary chairman Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing on Thursday, May 25, 2023.

The Court received the petition on March 30 based on the petition deed No. 33/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/03/2023, filed based on the special power of attorney dated April 23 to Hendrawarman, Dhipra Nugroho Putra, Destinal Armunanto, W.S. Guntur, Muhammad Hardjan Anwar, and Ayu Arselia Putri.

“[The petition] has been recorded in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK) on April 11, 2023 as No. 38/PUU-XXI/2023 on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations against the 1945 Constitution,” Chief Justice Anwar said.

Following Article 34 of the Constitutional Court Law, he said, the Court had held a panel preliminary hearing on the a quo petition on May 3. Following Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 41 paragraph (3) of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 on the procedure law for judicial review, the justice panel had given advice to the Petitioner to revise the petition.

“Including revising the name of the legal counsel in the petition since the power of attorney dated April 23, 2023 that the Court received on May 3 [vide transcript of hearing for case No. 38 PUU-XXI/2023 on May 3, 2023],” Chief Justice Anwar said.

He also revealed that the Court had held a panel petition revision hearing on May 17, where the Petitioner stated that he would withdraw the petition, citing that the subject matter was not under the Court’s jurisdiction. After the hearing, on the same day, the Court received letter No. 018/BANA/V/2023 on the request to withdraw the petition, dated May 16.

“On the withdrawal of the Petitioner’s petition, Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law declares, ‘The petitioner may withdraw his/her petition before or during the examination thereof by the Constitutional Court,’ and paragraph (2) reads, ‘Withdrawal of a petition as referred to in paragraph (1) means that the petition may not be filed again,’” Chief Justice Anwar explained.

Therefore, he added, based on that, the justices in a justice deliberation meeting on May 22 had granted and determined that the petition’s withdrawal was legally grounded and that the Petitioner cannot re-file the a quo petition.

“Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court ordered the Chief Registrar to record the withdrawal in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK) and to return copies of the petition to the Petitioner; grant the Petitioner’s petition’s withdrawal; declare the petition in case No. 38/PUU-XXI/2023 on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2021 on the Harmonization of Taxation Regulations (State Gazette No. 246 of 2021, Supplement No. 6736 to the State Gazette) against the 1945 Constitution withdrawn,” he said alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

Also read:

Factory Worker Challenges Provisions on Income Tax

Factory Worker Withdraws Petition on Income Tax Provisions

The Petitioner challenged Article 4 paragraph (1a) of the HPP Law, which reads, “The object of tax shall be income, which is any additional economic capacity received or obtained by the Taxpayer, whether originating from Indonesia or outside Indonesia, which can be used for consumption or to increase the wealth of the Taxpayer in question, in any name and form, including: a. reimbursement or compensation in connection with work or services received or obtained including salaries, wages, allowances, honoraria, commissions, bonuses, gratuities, pensions, or compensation in other forms including benefit in kind and/or benefit, unless otherwise specified in this Law.”

The Petitioner asserted that the article, which also could be interpreted as benefit in the form health facilities, was against Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. He also revealed that he had received a letter by the Directorate-General II in response to his request letter on tax on benefit in kind that could potentially drain his wages. The enactment of the HPP Law, he argued, had made health and medical benefit that he received from his employer an object of income tax (PPh), when it had not been previously. This, he stressed, had disadvantaged him. In turn, he requested that Article 4 paragraph (1a) of the HPP Law, especially on benefit in the form health facilities, be declared not an object of tax income.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.


Thursday, May 25, 2023 | 15:06 WIB 116