Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh chairing a judicial review hearing of Law on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP Law), Wednesday (2/28/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Entrepreneur Puguh Suseno is challenging Article 39 paragraph (1) letters d and i of Law No. 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP Law) in the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 30/PUU-XXII/2024 took place on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms.

Article 39 paragraph (1) letters d and i of the KUP Law reads, “Anyone who deliberately: d. delivers a Tax Return and/ or information whose content is incorrect or incomplete; i. does not pay the tax that has been withheld or collected so that it results in the loss for state revenues shall be subjected to imprisonment of at least 6 (six) months and no longer than 6 (six) years and shall be subjected to a fine of at least 2 (two) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid and no more than 4 (four) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid.”

Legal counsel Muhammad Ardilangga said the article is in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner believes it does not firmly regulate sanctions on taxpayers who do not deliver a tax return or who delivers incorrect information. In other words, it only emphasizes the deliberate action that is subject to sanction, but does not regulate the way to prove it. In addition, the lower and upper limit of the sanction and fine has led to ambiguity of its implementation by the law enforcement.

“The Petitioner appeals to the Court to declare Article 39 paragraph (1) letters d and i of Law No. 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as ‘does not deliver the tax that has been withheld or collected so that it results in the loss for state revenues shall be subjected to imprisonment of at least 6 (six) months and no longer than 6 (six) years and to a fine of at least 2 (two) times of the amount of tax payable that is not paid or underpaid,’” said legal counsel Aditia Krise Tri Yuwanto reading the petitum before Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair), M. Guntur Hamzah, and Ridwan Mansyur.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah gave several recommendations for the petition. First, he asked about the connection between Petitioner’s problem and the norm being reviewed.

“Is there a direct connection? If there is, the Petitioner will have legal standing. If not, there must be an argument that it could potentially happen to the Petitioner,” he said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur said the need for the Petitioner to complete the description of the Court’s authority following the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. While the Petitioner stated that he is a taxpayer, Justice Ridwan said, he had not elaborated on his constitutional impairment.

“As a taxpayer, what is the loss. Not everyone can be granted a legal standing as a taxpayer. This must be elaborated more,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh noted that the Petitioner need to add theories and principles in, or comparison with, other countries on the need to provide accurate information on tax return. “If this article is removed, what are the effects. The petition has not shown the Petitioner’s and the investigator’s positions in handling tax crimes. The Petitioner should also include court decisions that can affirm his argument,” he explained.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Foekh announced that the revised petition should be submitted by Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fauzan
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.

---