Legal counsel Timbul Siahaan conveying the petition’s revisions at a judicial review hearing of the Law on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation, Monday (12/23/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for the material judicial review of Article 36 paragraph (1) letters b and c of Law No. 28 of 2007 on General Provisions and Procedures of Taxation (KUP Law) and Article 43 paragraph (1) of Law No. 14 of 2002 on the Tax Court on Monday, December 23, 2024.

The case No. 168/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Surianingsih, a taxpaying citizen. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Ridwan Mansyur.

Through legal counsel Timbul Siahaan, the Petitioner conveyed that the petition had been revised following the panel’s advice. The articles petitioned have been changed to Article 36 paragraph (1) letters b and c of the KUP Law and Article 43 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Tax Court Law. “The petitums have also been revised, on pages 28 and 29,” he said.

In the revised petitums, the Petitioner requests several things. “Third, to declare the phrase ‘reducing or canceling the incorrect tax assessment as referred to in article 14’ in Article 36 paragraph (1) letter c 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 be interpreted as ‘reducing or canceling the incorrect tax assessment as referred to in article 14 and on the tax assessment letter, the taxpayer is obliged to pay the accrued tax at least in the amount agreed by the taxpayer in the final discussion of the audit results, before the letter of reduction or cancelation is submitted, and the period of tax repayment as referred to in Article 9 paragraph (3) or paragraph (3a) for the amount of unpaid tax at the time of submission of the reduction or cancelation is suspended until 1 (one) month from the date of issuance of the decision letter of tax reduction or cancelation,’” Siahaan stressed.

He added that the Petitioner’s legal standing relating on her credentials on page 9 had been revised.

“In paragraph 25, on page 9, we have contrasted the reduction or cancelation that has led to legal uncertainty and unequal treatment before the law relating to the deadline of tax repayment,” he stressed.

Also read: Discrimination in Tax Debt Payment Term Challenge

The Petitioner argued that the articles petitioned did not provide legal certainty. She argued that her constitutional right had been violated as she was required to pay tax despite the fact that she is taking legal action by requesting the cancelation or reduction of the overdue tax. She believes this uncertainty is against the legal certainty guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and the principle of the rule of law in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. She has also compared the provisions with Article 25 paragraphs (3a) and (7) and Article 27 paragraph (5) of Law No. 28 of 2007, which grant taxpayers the right to request delay of tax payment while filing objection or appeal.

The Petitioner feels she has been discriminated as the objection or appeal would result in the delay of payment of overdue tax for one month after the decision is handed down. However, a request of tax debt cancelation and a lawsuit do not give the same leniency. As such, the taxpayer must pay the tax despite undergoing a legal process to challenge it.

The Petitioner argued that the articles being petitioned has led to legal uncertainty and could potentially discriminate between taxpayers who file an objection or appeal and those who request for tax cancelation or deduction. This, she stressed, is not in line with the main goal of obtaining legal certainty and justice.

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor            : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                 : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---