Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
The House of Representatives (House) and the government’s plan to continue deliberations of the Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty (Draft Bill) marks the beginning of the new House session. However, many believe that this plan will ultimately prove to be unfruitful, and that the Draft Bill will end up having little to no effect on state revenues generated by the taxation sector.
This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA) on Thursday, 3 March 2016. In her conversation with hukumonline, Mrs. Sucipto also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
Pursuing this line of thought further, Mrs. Sucipto pointed to several issues which she believes to be matters of concern as regards the deliberation of the Draft Bill. Firstly, the Draft Bill only intends to impose administrative sanctions of between 1% and 3% of the total value of any evaded tax upon tax offenders. This level of sanction will amount to almost nothing if the purpose of introducing it is to boost state-budget revenue from the taxation sector, Mrs. Sucipto believes. Indeed, if the improvement of tax revenues is the ultimate aim, then sanction levels should have been set at around 25 -40% instead.
“Therefore, we [FITRA] believe that the Draft Bill is only rolling out a red carpet for tax offenders. This is the first issue that we have with the bill,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
A second issue involves the fact that the idea of a tax amnesty negates all judicial processing for corporate investors, as regards assets obtained through tax evasion which are located abroad. Indeed, such investors are even allowed to return to Indonesia without any legal redress whatsoever. According to Mrs. Sucipto, it is inevitable that this “far-too-lenient” sanction for tax offenders is obviously unfair on both law-abiding citizens and on corporations that fulfill their tax obligations.
Mrs. Sucipto’s scepticism also stems from the fact that deliberations of the Draft Bill are actually based upon the government’s stubbornness, and have no solid system to back them up. Here, Mrs. Sucipto is referring to the tax-amnesty policies of 1964 and 1984, as well as to the sunset policy of 2006. All of these tax-amnesty policies ultimately failed to significantly improve Indonesia’s tax revenues. Indeed, the government eventually suffered a financial squeeze which led to a reliance on foreign loans.
“This policy is a flimsy idea with no in-depth assessment of any existing and possible problems behind it. Simply put, it’s just a partial solution,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
Firdaus Ilyas, the Coordinator for Indonesian Corruption Watch’s (ICW) Budget Analysis and Monitoring Division, also ventured an opinion on the matter. According to Ilyas, a tax amnesty should be a last resort as regards the enforcement of the country’s economic laws. However, there’s always the possibility with such amnesties that tax offenders, money launderers and other criminal offenders will abuse the Draft Bill and simply wash their hands of their crimes. Mr. Ilyas asserted that the Draft Bill’s tax-amnesty provisions completely disregard the role of law enforcement as it relates to crimes of tax evasion. Ultimately, any tax amnesty ignores the source of money and assets owned by a tax offender, just so long as the country’s revenue increases.
In this context, the administration of President Joko Widodo should have learnt from the mistakes made by previous governments during the Old Order and the New Order regimes. Previously, tax offenders abused tax-amnesty policy in order to legitimize their assets, many of which were obtained illegitimately. These tax offenders were then able walk away scot free while stashing their assets abroad.
“Formally speaking, ICW totally disagrees with the current tax-amnesty plan, be it this year or the following year. A number of strict requirements should govern any tax-amnesty plan, however no such requirements have yet been formulated. It is inevitable then the current tax-amnesty policy will mainly be utilized by tax offenders in order to legitimize potentially illegitimate assets and all that goes along with such activities, instead of by law-abiding taxpayers,” concluded Mr. Ilyas.
Pros: Creating a Complete Tax-Offenders Database
In light of the House and the government’s plan to continue deliberations of the Draft Bill, some say that this will offer a solution to tackling the current state-revenue deficit. This opinion was expressed by lawmaker Ahmadi Noor Supit, the Chair of House Commission XI.
“This Draft Bill is a potential solution for the country’s revenue shortfall, and is ultimately in the country’s best interests. We don’t need to be suspicious of any hidden agendas lying behind its deliberation,” asserted Mr. Supit during a discussion which was held in Jakarta on Thursday, 3 March 2016.
Obviously, our people [Indonesian citizens] must be forced to pay any due taxes, and currently there is a low level of awareness as regards citizens’ tax obligations. It is hoped then that the proposed tax amnesty will help in the creation of a database of frequent tax offenders, in addition to the additional revenues which will be generated through the implementation of such a policy.
“Indeed, without offering a tax amnesty, there’s no way that tax offenders will willingly offer up their tax-evasion data,” asserted Mr. Supit.
However, Mr. Supit explained that he remained unsure as to whether the tax amnesty would only cover tax crimes or also include their possible source crimes. In response to this question, Enny Sri Hartati, the Executive Director of the Institute for Development of Economics Finance (INDEF), asserted that the Draft Bill would only cover tax crimes, and not any source crimes.
Lawmaker Aryo Djojohadikusumo (Commission VII) has also weighed into the debate, stating that the government’s plan should be supported so that sufficient state revenue can be secured. However, Mr. Djojohadikusumo also asserted that the implementation of the tax-amnesty policy must be fair and just, not only for tax offenders but also for law-abiding taxpayers.
“We shouldn’t offer amnesty for tax offenders on the one hand, but then apply strict investigations into law-abiding taxpayers. That wouldn’t be fair,” concluded Mr. Djojohadikusumo.
This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA) on Thursday, 3 March 2016. In her conversation with hukumonline, Mrs. Sucipto also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
Pursuing this line of thought further, Mrs. Sucipto pointed to several issues which she believes to be matters of concern as regards the deliberation of the Draft Bill. Firstly, the Draft Bill only intends to impose administrative sanctions of between 1% and 3% of the total value of any evaded tax upon tax offenders. This level of sanction will amount to almost nothing if the purpose of introducing it is to boost state-budget revenue from the taxation sector, Mrs. Sucipto believes. Indeed, if the improvement of tax revenues is the ultimate aim, then sanction levels should have been set at around 25 -40% instead.
“Therefore, we [FITRA] believe that the Draft Bill is only rolling out a red carpet for tax offenders. This is the first issue that we have with the bill,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
A second issue involves the fact that the idea of a tax amnesty negates all judicial processing for corporate investors, as regards assets obtained through tax evasion which are located abroad. Indeed, such investors are even allowed to return to Indonesia without any legal redress whatsoever. According to Mrs. Sucipto, it is inevitable that this “far-too-lenient” sanction for tax offenders is obviously unfair on both law-abiding citizens and on corporations that fulfill their tax obligations.
Mrs. Sucipto’s scepticism also stems from the fact that deliberations of the Draft Bill are actually based upon the government’s stubbornness, and have no solid system to back them up. Here, Mrs. Sucipto is referring to the tax-amnesty policies of 1964 and 1984, as well as to the sunset policy of 2006. All of these tax-amnesty policies ultimately failed to significantly improve Indonesia’s tax revenues. Indeed, the government eventually suffered a financial squeeze which led to a reliance on foreign loans.
“This policy is a flimsy idea with no in-depth assessment of any existing and possible problems behind it. Simply put, it’s just a partial solution,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
Firdaus Ilyas, the Coordinator for Indonesian Corruption Watch’s (ICW) Budget Analysis and Monitoring Division, also ventured an opinion on the matter. According to Ilyas, a tax amnesty should be a last resort as regards the enforcement of the country’s economic laws. However, there’s always the possibility with such amnesties that tax offenders, money launderers and other criminal offenders will abuse the Draft Bill and simply wash their hands of their crimes. Mr. Ilyas asserted that the Draft Bill’s tax-amnesty provisions completely disregard the role of law enforcement as it relates to crimes of tax evasion. Ultimately, any tax amnesty ignores the source of money and assets owned by a tax offender, just so long as the country’s revenue increases.
In this context, the administration of President Joko Widodo should have learnt from the mistakes made by previous governments during the Old Order and the New Order regimes. Previously, tax offenders abused tax-amnesty policy in order to legitimize their assets, many of which were obtained illegitimately. These tax offenders were then able walk away scot free while stashing their assets abroad.
“Formally speaking, ICW totally disagrees with the current tax-amnesty plan, be it this year or the following year. A number of strict requirements should govern any tax-amnesty plan, however no such requirements have yet been formulated. It is inevitable then the current tax-amnesty policy will mainly be utilized by tax offenders in order to legitimize potentially illegitimate assets and all that goes along with such activities, instead of by law-abiding taxpayers,” concluded Mr. Ilyas.
Pros: Creating a Complete Tax-Offenders Database
In light of the House and the government’s plan to continue deliberations of the Draft Bill, some say that this will offer a solution to tackling the current state-revenue deficit. This opinion was expressed by lawmaker Ahmadi Noor Supit, the Chair of House Commission XI.
“This Draft Bill is a potential solution for the country’s revenue shortfall, and is ultimately in the country’s best interests. We don’t need to be suspicious of any hidden agendas lying behind its deliberation,” asserted Mr. Supit during a discussion which was held in Jakarta on Thursday, 3 March 2016.
Obviously, our people [Indonesian citizens] must be forced to pay any due taxes, and currently there is a low level of awareness as regards citizens’ tax obligations. It is hoped then that the proposed tax amnesty will help in the creation of a database of frequent tax offenders, in addition to the additional revenues which will be generated through the implementation of such a policy.
“Indeed, without offering a tax amnesty, there’s no way that tax offenders will willingly offer up their tax-evasion data,” asserted Mr. Supit.
However, Mr. Supit explained that he remained unsure as to whether the tax amnesty would only cover tax crimes or also include their possible source crimes. In response to this question, Enny Sri Hartati, the Executive Director of the Institute for Development of Economics Finance (INDEF), asserted that the Draft Bill would only cover tax crimes, and not any source crimes.
Lawmaker Aryo Djojohadikusumo (Commission VII) has also weighed into the debate, stating that the government’s plan should be supported so that sufficient state revenue can be secured. However, Mr. Djojohadikusumo also asserted that the implementation of the tax-amnesty policy must be fair and just, not only for tax offenders but also for law-abiding taxpayers.
“We shouldn’t offer amnesty for tax offenders on the one hand, but then apply strict investigations into law-abiding taxpayers. That wouldn’t be fair,” concluded Mr. Djojohadikusumo.
(rfs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
The House of Representatives (House) and the government’s plan to continue deliberations of the Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty (Draft Bill) marks the beginning of the new House session. However, many believe that this plan will ultimately prove to be unfruitful, and that the Draft Bill will end up having little to no effect on state revenues generated by the taxation sector.
This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA) on Thursday, 3 March 2016. In her conversation with hukumonline, Mrs. Sucipto also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
Pursuing this line of thought further, Mrs. Sucipto pointed to several issues which she believes to be matters of concern as regards the deliberation of the Draft Bill. Firstly, the Draft Bill only intends to impose administrative sanctions of between 1% and 3% of the total value of any evaded tax upon tax offenders. This level of sanction will amount to almost nothing if the purpose of introducing it is to boost state-budget revenue from the taxation sector, Mrs. Sucipto believes. Indeed, if the improvement of tax revenues is the ultimate aim, then sanction levels should have been set at around 25 -40% instead.
“Therefore, we [FITRA] believe that the Draft Bill is only rolling out a red carpet for tax offenders. This is the first issue that we have with the bill,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
A second issue involves the fact that the idea of a tax amnesty negates all judicial processing for corporate investors, as regards assets obtained through tax evasion which are located abroad. Indeed, such investors are even allowed to return to Indonesia without any legal redress whatsoever. According to Mrs. Sucipto, it is inevitable that this “far-too-lenient” sanction for tax offenders is obviously unfair on both law-abiding citizens and on corporations that fulfill their tax obligations.
Mrs. Sucipto’s scepticism also stems from the fact that deliberations of the Draft Bill are actually based upon the government’s stubbornness, and have no solid system to back them up. Here, Mrs. Sucipto is referring to the tax-amnesty policies of 1964 and 1984, as well as to the sunset policy of 2006. All of these tax-amnesty policies ultimately failed to significantly improve Indonesia’s tax revenues. Indeed, the government eventually suffered a financial squeeze which led to a reliance on foreign loans.
“This policy is a flimsy idea with no in-depth assessment of any existing and possible problems behind it. Simply put, it’s just a partial solution,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
Firdaus Ilyas, the Coordinator for Indonesian Corruption Watch’s (ICW) Budget Analysis and Monitoring Division, also ventured an opinion on the matter. According to Ilyas, a tax amnesty should be a last resort as regards the enforcement of the country’s economic laws. However, there’s always the possibility with such amnesties that tax offenders, money launderers and other criminal offenders will abuse the Draft Bill and simply wash their hands of their crimes. Mr. Ilyas asserted that the Draft Bill’s tax-amnesty provisions completely disregard the role of law enforcement as it relates to crimes of tax evasion. Ultimately, any tax amnesty ignores the source of money and assets owned by a tax offender, just so long as the country’s revenue increases.
In this context, the administration of President Joko Widodo should have learnt from the mistakes made by previous governments during the Old Order and the New Order regimes. Previously, tax offenders abused tax-amnesty policy in order to legitimize their assets, many of which were obtained illegitimately. These tax offenders were then able walk away scot free while stashing their assets abroad.
“Formally speaking, ICW totally disagrees with the current tax-amnesty plan, be it this year or the following year. A number of strict requirements should govern any tax-amnesty plan, however no such requirements have yet been formulated. It is inevitable then the current tax-amnesty policy will mainly be utilized by tax offenders in order to legitimize potentially illegitimate assets and all that goes along with such activities, instead of by law-abiding taxpayers,” concluded Mr. Ilyas.
Pros: Creating a Complete Tax-Offenders Database
In light of the House and the government’s plan to continue deliberations of the Draft Bill, some say that this will offer a solution to tackling the current state-revenue deficit. This opinion was expressed by lawmaker Ahmadi Noor Supit, the Chair of House Commission XI.
“This Draft Bill is a potential solution for the country’s revenue shortfall, and is ultimately in the country’s best interests. We don’t need to be suspicious of any hidden agendas lying behind its deliberation,” asserted Mr. Supit during a discussion which was held in Jakarta on Thursday, 3 March 2016.
Obviously, our people [Indonesian citizens] must be forced to pay any due taxes, and currently there is a low level of awareness as regards citizens’ tax obligations. It is hoped then that the proposed tax amnesty will help in the creation of a database of frequent tax offenders, in addition to the additional revenues which will be generated through the implementation of such a policy.
“Indeed, without offering a tax amnesty, there’s no way that tax offenders will willingly offer up their tax-evasion data,” asserted Mr. Supit.
However, Mr. Supit explained that he remained unsure as to whether the tax amnesty would only cover tax crimes or also include their possible source crimes. In response to this question, Enny Sri Hartati, the Executive Director of the Institute for Development of Economics Finance (INDEF), asserted that the Draft Bill would only cover tax crimes, and not any source crimes.
Lawmaker Aryo Djojohadikusumo (Commission VII) has also weighed into the debate, stating that the government’s plan should be supported so that sufficient state revenue can be secured. However, Mr. Djojohadikusumo also asserted that the implementation of the tax-amnesty policy must be fair and just, not only for tax offenders but also for law-abiding taxpayers.
“We shouldn’t offer amnesty for tax offenders on the one hand, but then apply strict investigations into law-abiding taxpayers. That wouldn’t be fair,” concluded Mr. Djojohadikusumo.
This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA) on Thursday, 3 March 2016. In her conversation with hukumonline, Mrs. Sucipto also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
Pursuing this line of thought further, Mrs. Sucipto pointed to several issues which she believes to be matters of concern as regards the deliberation of the Draft Bill. Firstly, the Draft Bill only intends to impose administrative sanctions of between 1% and 3% of the total value of any evaded tax upon tax offenders. This level of sanction will amount to almost nothing if the purpose of introducing it is to boost state-budget revenue from the taxation sector, Mrs. Sucipto believes. Indeed, if the improvement of tax revenues is the ultimate aim, then sanction levels should have been set at around 25 -40% instead.
“Therefore, we [FITRA] believe that the Draft Bill is only rolling out a red carpet for tax offenders. This is the first issue that we have with the bill,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
A second issue involves the fact that the idea of a tax amnesty negates all judicial processing for corporate investors, as regards assets obtained through tax evasion which are located abroad. Indeed, such investors are even allowed to return to Indonesia without any legal redress whatsoever. According to Mrs. Sucipto, it is inevitable that this “far-too-lenient” sanction for tax offenders is obviously unfair on both law-abiding citizens and on corporations that fulfill their tax obligations.
Mrs. Sucipto’s scepticism also stems from the fact that deliberations of the Draft Bill are actually based upon the government’s stubbornness, and have no solid system to back them up. Here, Mrs. Sucipto is referring to the tax-amnesty policies of 1964 and 1984, as well as to the sunset policy of 2006. All of these tax-amnesty policies ultimately failed to significantly improve Indonesia’s tax revenues. Indeed, the government eventually suffered a financial squeeze which led to a reliance on foreign loans.
“This policy is a flimsy idea with no in-depth assessment of any existing and possible problems behind it. Simply put, it’s just a partial solution,” asserted Mrs. Sucipto.
Firdaus Ilyas, the Coordinator for Indonesian Corruption Watch’s (ICW) Budget Analysis and Monitoring Division, also ventured an opinion on the matter. According to Ilyas, a tax amnesty should be a last resort as regards the enforcement of the country’s economic laws. However, there’s always the possibility with such amnesties that tax offenders, money launderers and other criminal offenders will abuse the Draft Bill and simply wash their hands of their crimes. Mr. Ilyas asserted that the Draft Bill’s tax-amnesty provisions completely disregard the role of law enforcement as it relates to crimes of tax evasion. Ultimately, any tax amnesty ignores the source of money and assets owned by a tax offender, just so long as the country’s revenue increases.
In this context, the administration of President Joko Widodo should have learnt from the mistakes made by previous governments during the Old Order and the New Order regimes. Previously, tax offenders abused tax-amnesty policy in order to legitimize their assets, many of which were obtained illegitimately. These tax offenders were then able walk away scot free while stashing their assets abroad.
“Formally speaking, ICW totally disagrees with the current tax-amnesty plan, be it this year or the following year. A number of strict requirements should govern any tax-amnesty plan, however no such requirements have yet been formulated. It is inevitable then the current tax-amnesty policy will mainly be utilized by tax offenders in order to legitimize potentially illegitimate assets and all that goes along with such activities, instead of by law-abiding taxpayers,” concluded Mr. Ilyas.
Pros: Creating a Complete Tax-Offenders Database
In light of the House and the government’s plan to continue deliberations of the Draft Bill, some say that this will offer a solution to tackling the current state-revenue deficit. This opinion was expressed by lawmaker Ahmadi Noor Supit, the Chair of House Commission XI.
“This Draft Bill is a potential solution for the country’s revenue shortfall, and is ultimately in the country’s best interests. We don’t need to be suspicious of any hidden agendas lying behind its deliberation,” asserted Mr. Supit during a discussion which was held in Jakarta on Thursday, 3 March 2016.
Obviously, our people [Indonesian citizens] must be forced to pay any due taxes, and currently there is a low level of awareness as regards citizens’ tax obligations. It is hoped then that the proposed tax amnesty will help in the creation of a database of frequent tax offenders, in addition to the additional revenues which will be generated through the implementation of such a policy.
“Indeed, without offering a tax amnesty, there’s no way that tax offenders will willingly offer up their tax-evasion data,” asserted Mr. Supit.
However, Mr. Supit explained that he remained unsure as to whether the tax amnesty would only cover tax crimes or also include their possible source crimes. In response to this question, Enny Sri Hartati, the Executive Director of the Institute for Development of Economics Finance (INDEF), asserted that the Draft Bill would only cover tax crimes, and not any source crimes.
Lawmaker Aryo Djojohadikusumo (Commission VII) has also weighed into the debate, stating that the government’s plan should be supported so that sufficient state revenue can be secured. However, Mr. Djojohadikusumo also asserted that the implementation of the tax-amnesty policy must be fair and just, not only for tax offenders but also for law-abiding taxpayers.
“We shouldn’t offer amnesty for tax offenders on the one hand, but then apply strict investigations into law-abiding taxpayers. That wouldn’t be fair,” concluded Mr. Djojohadikusumo.
(rfs/sp)