Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L. Makmur
Juniver Girsang. Photo by: RES
Tax-Court Chairman Circular Letter No. 003/PP/2015 on the Submission of Reports Describing the Provision of Attorney Services at the Tax Court (2015 Circular) mandated that all tax-court attorneys (both lawyers and non-lawyers) should submit reports to the Chairman of the Tax Court describing any attorney services which they offer to clients. This mandatory reporting obligation came into force at the beginning of this year (2016).
However, many tax attorneys remain unaware of the 2015 Circular. Commenting on this issue, Mr. Juniver Girsang, a lawyer and the Head of the Tax-Consultant Association (Perhimpunan Konsultan Hukum Pajak - PKHP), asserted that his organization had yet to receive any dissemination regarding the 2015 Circular. In fact, Mr. Girsang, who is also a legal taxation consultant himself, stressed that he had never been asked to produce such a report at tax courts before.
“I was not aware of the 2015 Circular, and we [tax attorneys] have never previously been asked for such reports,” Mr. Girsang told Hukumonline on Friday, 17 June 2016.
Mr. Girsang also asserted that the PKHP was planning to send an official letter to the Chairman of the Tax Court requesting further information and clarification concerning the importance and background behind the issuance of the 2015 Circular.
“Our [tax attorneys] task is to engage in court proceedings, which are recorded and documented by court registrars. Hence, I would ultimately question the rationale behind mandating that attorneys should also produce reports,” affirmed Mr. Girsang.
Mr. Girsang disagrees that such reporting, which is required to encompass information such as the types of services being offered by the attorney in question, case numbers, trial dates, and explanations from appellants, represents a form of oversight. Instead, Mr. Girsang believes that any oversight mechanism should relate to possible violations being committed by attorneys.
Mr. Girsang also expressed his objection to the prospect of such mandatory reporting becoming the basis for the evaluation of tax-attorney licenses. Mr. Girsang considers that such a move would be irrelevant, as tax-consultant licensing is issued based on certain criteria, for example professional courses, as well as the possession of certain qualifications, and should not be based on any reporting requirements.
“It is not acceptable to revoke a tax-attorney’s license for the reason that its holder has not submitted a mandatory report. There are complex processes involved in the obtaining of such licenses, from taking professional courses to satisfying certain qualifications. How can a license be revoked just because the holder has not complied with a mandatory reporting policy,” asserted Mr. Girsang.
Meanwhile, Mr. Abdul Fickar Hadjar, a legal expert at Trisakti University, also stated his belief that the 2015 Circular was of no importance to lawyers offering tax-attorney services, because the oversight of lawyers has been delegated to bar associations, as stipulated under the Advocate Law. Thus, the court no longer has the authority to oversee lawyers.
Nonetheless, Mr. Hadjar believes that the 2015 Circular may still be applicable to individual, non-lawyer tax attorneys. Non-lawyers are currently allowed to become tax attorneys and work for clients after first securing a license from the Chairman of the Tax Court. In this regard, according to Mr. Hadjar, the mandatory reporting policy can be seen as a form of oversight for such individuals.
“However, the policy is of no significance to lawyers. In fact, I’m afraid that this policy will be misused and become a means of engaging in shady dealings outside of courtrooms, which in turn could lead to a whole new type of judicial mafia practice. After all, oversight can be misappropriated for ill-natured purposes,” concluded Mr. Hadjar.
However, many tax attorneys remain unaware of the 2015 Circular. Commenting on this issue, Mr. Juniver Girsang, a lawyer and the Head of the Tax-Consultant Association (Perhimpunan Konsultan Hukum Pajak - PKHP), asserted that his organization had yet to receive any dissemination regarding the 2015 Circular. In fact, Mr. Girsang, who is also a legal taxation consultant himself, stressed that he had never been asked to produce such a report at tax courts before.
“I was not aware of the 2015 Circular, and we [tax attorneys] have never previously been asked for such reports,” Mr. Girsang told Hukumonline on Friday, 17 June 2016.
Mr. Girsang also asserted that the PKHP was planning to send an official letter to the Chairman of the Tax Court requesting further information and clarification concerning the importance and background behind the issuance of the 2015 Circular.
“Our [tax attorneys] task is to engage in court proceedings, which are recorded and documented by court registrars. Hence, I would ultimately question the rationale behind mandating that attorneys should also produce reports,” affirmed Mr. Girsang.
Mr. Girsang disagrees that such reporting, which is required to encompass information such as the types of services being offered by the attorney in question, case numbers, trial dates, and explanations from appellants, represents a form of oversight. Instead, Mr. Girsang believes that any oversight mechanism should relate to possible violations being committed by attorneys.
Mr. Girsang also expressed his objection to the prospect of such mandatory reporting becoming the basis for the evaluation of tax-attorney licenses. Mr. Girsang considers that such a move would be irrelevant, as tax-consultant licensing is issued based on certain criteria, for example professional courses, as well as the possession of certain qualifications, and should not be based on any reporting requirements.
“It is not acceptable to revoke a tax-attorney’s license for the reason that its holder has not submitted a mandatory report. There are complex processes involved in the obtaining of such licenses, from taking professional courses to satisfying certain qualifications. How can a license be revoked just because the holder has not complied with a mandatory reporting policy,” asserted Mr. Girsang.
Meanwhile, Mr. Abdul Fickar Hadjar, a legal expert at Trisakti University, also stated his belief that the 2015 Circular was of no importance to lawyers offering tax-attorney services, because the oversight of lawyers has been delegated to bar associations, as stipulated under the Advocate Law. Thus, the court no longer has the authority to oversee lawyers.
Nonetheless, Mr. Hadjar believes that the 2015 Circular may still be applicable to individual, non-lawyer tax attorneys. Non-lawyers are currently allowed to become tax attorneys and work for clients after first securing a license from the Chairman of the Tax Court. In this regard, according to Mr. Hadjar, the mandatory reporting policy can be seen as a form of oversight for such individuals.
“However, the policy is of no significance to lawyers. In fact, I’m afraid that this policy will be misused and become a means of engaging in shady dealings outside of courtrooms, which in turn could lead to a whole new type of judicial mafia practice. After all, oversight can be misappropriated for ill-natured purposes,” concluded Mr. Hadjar.
(hs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L. Makmur
Juniver Girsang. Photo by: RES
Tax-Court Chairman Circular Letter No. 003/PP/2015 on the Submission of Reports Describing the Provision of Attorney Services at the Tax Court (2015 Circular) mandated that all tax-court attorneys (both lawyers and non-lawyers) should submit reports to the Chairman of the Tax Court describing any attorney services which they offer to clients. This mandatory reporting obligation came into force at the beginning of this year (2016).
However, many tax attorneys remain unaware of the 2015 Circular. Commenting on this issue, Mr. Juniver Girsang, a lawyer and the Head of the Tax-Consultant Association (Perhimpunan Konsultan Hukum Pajak - PKHP), asserted that his organization had yet to receive any dissemination regarding the 2015 Circular. In fact, Mr. Girsang, who is also a legal taxation consultant himself, stressed that he had never been asked to produce such a report at tax courts before.
“I was not aware of the 2015 Circular, and we [tax attorneys] have never previously been asked for such reports,” Mr. Girsang told Hukumonline on Friday, 17 June 2016.
Mr. Girsang also asserted that the PKHP was planning to send an official letter to the Chairman of the Tax Court requesting further information and clarification concerning the importance and background behind the issuance of the 2015 Circular.
“Our [tax attorneys] task is to engage in court proceedings, which are recorded and documented by court registrars. Hence, I would ultimately question the rationale behind mandating that attorneys should also produce reports,” affirmed Mr. Girsang.
Mr. Girsang disagrees that such reporting, which is required to encompass information such as the types of services being offered by the attorney in question, case numbers, trial dates, and explanations from appellants, represents a form of oversight. Instead, Mr. Girsang believes that any oversight mechanism should relate to possible violations being committed by attorneys.
Mr. Girsang also expressed his objection to the prospect of such mandatory reporting becoming the basis for the evaluation of tax-attorney licenses. Mr. Girsang considers that such a move would be irrelevant, as tax-consultant licensing is issued based on certain criteria, for example professional courses, as well as the possession of certain qualifications, and should not be based on any reporting requirements.
“It is not acceptable to revoke a tax-attorney’s license for the reason that its holder has not submitted a mandatory report. There are complex processes involved in the obtaining of such licenses, from taking professional courses to satisfying certain qualifications. How can a license be revoked just because the holder has not complied with a mandatory reporting policy,” asserted Mr. Girsang.
Meanwhile, Mr. Abdul Fickar Hadjar, a legal expert at Trisakti University, also stated his belief that the 2015 Circular was of no importance to lawyers offering tax-attorney services, because the oversight of lawyers has been delegated to bar associations, as stipulated under the Advocate Law. Thus, the court no longer has the authority to oversee lawyers.
Nonetheless, Mr. Hadjar believes that the 2015 Circular may still be applicable to individual, non-lawyer tax attorneys. Non-lawyers are currently allowed to become tax attorneys and work for clients after first securing a license from the Chairman of the Tax Court. In this regard, according to Mr. Hadjar, the mandatory reporting policy can be seen as a form of oversight for such individuals.
“However, the policy is of no significance to lawyers. In fact, I’m afraid that this policy will be misused and become a means of engaging in shady dealings outside of courtrooms, which in turn could lead to a whole new type of judicial mafia practice. After all, oversight can be misappropriated for ill-natured purposes,” concluded Mr. Hadjar.
However, many tax attorneys remain unaware of the 2015 Circular. Commenting on this issue, Mr. Juniver Girsang, a lawyer and the Head of the Tax-Consultant Association (Perhimpunan Konsultan Hukum Pajak - PKHP), asserted that his organization had yet to receive any dissemination regarding the 2015 Circular. In fact, Mr. Girsang, who is also a legal taxation consultant himself, stressed that he had never been asked to produce such a report at tax courts before.
“I was not aware of the 2015 Circular, and we [tax attorneys] have never previously been asked for such reports,” Mr. Girsang told Hukumonline on Friday, 17 June 2016.
Mr. Girsang also asserted that the PKHP was planning to send an official letter to the Chairman of the Tax Court requesting further information and clarification concerning the importance and background behind the issuance of the 2015 Circular.
“Our [tax attorneys] task is to engage in court proceedings, which are recorded and documented by court registrars. Hence, I would ultimately question the rationale behind mandating that attorneys should also produce reports,” affirmed Mr. Girsang.
Mr. Girsang disagrees that such reporting, which is required to encompass information such as the types of services being offered by the attorney in question, case numbers, trial dates, and explanations from appellants, represents a form of oversight. Instead, Mr. Girsang believes that any oversight mechanism should relate to possible violations being committed by attorneys.
Mr. Girsang also expressed his objection to the prospect of such mandatory reporting becoming the basis for the evaluation of tax-attorney licenses. Mr. Girsang considers that such a move would be irrelevant, as tax-consultant licensing is issued based on certain criteria, for example professional courses, as well as the possession of certain qualifications, and should not be based on any reporting requirements.
“It is not acceptable to revoke a tax-attorney’s license for the reason that its holder has not submitted a mandatory report. There are complex processes involved in the obtaining of such licenses, from taking professional courses to satisfying certain qualifications. How can a license be revoked just because the holder has not complied with a mandatory reporting policy,” asserted Mr. Girsang.
Meanwhile, Mr. Abdul Fickar Hadjar, a legal expert at Trisakti University, also stated his belief that the 2015 Circular was of no importance to lawyers offering tax-attorney services, because the oversight of lawyers has been delegated to bar associations, as stipulated under the Advocate Law. Thus, the court no longer has the authority to oversee lawyers.
Nonetheless, Mr. Hadjar believes that the 2015 Circular may still be applicable to individual, non-lawyer tax attorneys. Non-lawyers are currently allowed to become tax attorneys and work for clients after first securing a license from the Chairman of the Tax Court. In this regard, according to Mr. Hadjar, the mandatory reporting policy can be seen as a form of oversight for such individuals.
“However, the policy is of no significance to lawyers. In fact, I’m afraid that this policy will be misused and become a means of engaging in shady dealings outside of courtrooms, which in turn could lead to a whole new type of judicial mafia practice. After all, oversight can be misappropriated for ill-natured purposes,” concluded Mr. Hadjar.
(hs/sp)