Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L. Makmur
After a prolonged deliberation process accompanied with dissent and unrest among various factions within the House of Representatives (House), a plenary session (rapat paripurna) which was led by House Speaker, Ade Komarudin, has finally passed the Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty (Tax-Amnesty Bill) into a law on Tuesday, 28 June 2016.
Looking back at the very beginning, after the subject was initially raised during a House’s plenary session and a lengthy lobbying process, a Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty was then officially incorporated into the 2015 National Legislation Program (Program Legislasi Nasional – “Prolegnas”).At first, a plenary meeting organized by the Legislation Board (Badan Legislasi or Baleg) agreed that the Draft Bill would become the government’s responsibility. However, after various discussions into the matter had been concluded, the lawmakers and the government had both agreed to classify it as a joint initiative of both parties.
However, the though deliberation process with no immediate conclusion resulted the House failed to pass the Draft Bill in 2015 as planned . Consequently, the Draft Bill then automatically listed as part of the 2016 Prolegnas instead in order to allow a sufficient time to properly discuss this particular matter in greater detail. Even then, the deliberation of the Draft Bill itself remained stagnant up to April 2016. In fact, the deliberation was also forced to a halt due to several factions demanding direct discussions with President Joko Widodo.
Not long after, Indonesia was shook by the uproar caused by the leak of the so-called “Panama Papers” which also mention some 2,000 Indonesian citizens and companies. This event proves the long-held suspicion that major, high-earning taxpayers in the country have been deliberately avoiding their tax obligations by establishing offshore companies in tax heaven countries.
Bambang Brodjonegoro, the Minister of Finance, ventured an opinion as regards this matter. According to Minister Brodjonegoro, the Directorate General of Tax can crosscheck their data with information contained within the Panama Papers for the purpose of assessing offshore assets owned by Indonesian taxpayers. The leak of the Panama Papers has strengthened the importance of the Draft Bill in order to repatriate taxpayers assets currently parked outside the country.
“The tax-amnesty policy represents a momentum to holistically revitalize taxation policy,” asserted Minister Brodjonegoro on Wednesday, 6 April 2016.
Meanwhile, various non-governmental organizations (NGO) believed that a tax-amnesty policy is not the proper solution for Indonesia. This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA). Mrs. Sucipto asserted that the deliberation of the Draft Bill is in contradiction to the law enforcement policy [against tax offenders] announced by the Directorate General of Tax, and also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
“Therefore, we 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 on Thursday, 14 April 2016.
Nonetheless, the public controversy does not put the deliberation of the Draft Bill to an end. There are three essential matters that becomes the focus of discussion at the House. Firstly, there is the initiative to introduce tax-amnesty as part of tax reformation policy. The tax reform itself would cover tax regulations, administrations, and institutional reform. From the very start, the House always emphasized that tax-amnesty is a part of tax reformation.
Secondly, there is the matter of penalty rate that should be set at a higher rate. Mrs. Sucipto firmly believed that setting low penalty rate violates the fairness principle and also causing the country to loose a great amount of revenue. Indeed, the Draft Bill only impose two, four or six percent penalty rate for non-repatriated assets and one to three percent penalty rate for repatriated assets.
“Many factions within the House demands the increase of the penalty rate to around five to 15 percent. However, several factions such as the Prosperous Justice Party factions demands to repeal administrative sanctions and only enforce penal sanctions. Under the penal sanctions, the penalty rate will be set at 25 to 30 percent of the applicable General Taxation Policy (Ketentuan Umum Perpajakan - KUP) rate,” asserted lawmaker Ecky Awal Mucharam (Commission XI) on 27 May 2016.
Thirdly, there are also the matter of Article 15 of the Draft Bill regarding information and data of tax-amnesty participants which states that Information and data contained in the Tax-Amnesty Application Letter cannot be the basis for preliminary investigations, investigations, and/or criminal prosecutions against any taxpayers.
“We demand that this Article only applies to tax crimes. Any data and information regarding taxpayers must still be allowed to be used for the preliminary investigations and investigations of other crimes such as corruption, narcotics, terrorism, and human trafficking,” asserted lawmaker Mucharam.
Nonetheless, the Draft Bill has officially pass into law on the middle of June 2016. However, the PKS faction firmly demanded revisions for several provisions incorporated under the now Tax-Amnesty Bill such as Article 3 (5) which defines the object of tax-amnesty, Article 4 which regulates penalty rate and facilities, and Article 20 which regulates data and information contained within any affidavit made by tax-amnesty applicants.
In essence, the Tax-Amnesty Bill has passed into law and will be effective until 31 March 2017. Minister Brodjonegoro further revealed that the specific timeframe was established in order to avoid tax lawsuit during the implementation of tax-amnesty policy.
Looking back at the very beginning, after the subject was initially raised during a House’s plenary session and a lengthy lobbying process, a Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty was then officially incorporated into the 2015 National Legislation Program (Program Legislasi Nasional – “Prolegnas”).At first, a plenary meeting organized by the Legislation Board (Badan Legislasi or Baleg) agreed that the Draft Bill would become the government’s responsibility. However, after various discussions into the matter had been concluded, the lawmakers and the government had both agreed to classify it as a joint initiative of both parties.
However, the though deliberation process with no immediate conclusion resulted the House failed to pass the Draft Bill in 2015 as planned . Consequently, the Draft Bill then automatically listed as part of the 2016 Prolegnas instead in order to allow a sufficient time to properly discuss this particular matter in greater detail. Even then, the deliberation of the Draft Bill itself remained stagnant up to April 2016. In fact, the deliberation was also forced to a halt due to several factions demanding direct discussions with President Joko Widodo.
Not long after, Indonesia was shook by the uproar caused by the leak of the so-called “Panama Papers” which also mention some 2,000 Indonesian citizens and companies. This event proves the long-held suspicion that major, high-earning taxpayers in the country have been deliberately avoiding their tax obligations by establishing offshore companies in tax heaven countries.
Bambang Brodjonegoro, the Minister of Finance, ventured an opinion as regards this matter. According to Minister Brodjonegoro, the Directorate General of Tax can crosscheck their data with information contained within the Panama Papers for the purpose of assessing offshore assets owned by Indonesian taxpayers. The leak of the Panama Papers has strengthened the importance of the Draft Bill in order to repatriate taxpayers assets currently parked outside the country.
“The tax-amnesty policy represents a momentum to holistically revitalize taxation policy,” asserted Minister Brodjonegoro on Wednesday, 6 April 2016.
Meanwhile, various non-governmental organizations (NGO) believed that a tax-amnesty policy is not the proper solution for Indonesia. This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA). Mrs. Sucipto asserted that the deliberation of the Draft Bill is in contradiction to the law enforcement policy [against tax offenders] announced by the Directorate General of Tax, and also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
“Therefore, we 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 on Thursday, 14 April 2016.
Nonetheless, the public controversy does not put the deliberation of the Draft Bill to an end. There are three essential matters that becomes the focus of discussion at the House. Firstly, there is the initiative to introduce tax-amnesty as part of tax reformation policy. The tax reform itself would cover tax regulations, administrations, and institutional reform. From the very start, the House always emphasized that tax-amnesty is a part of tax reformation.
Secondly, there is the matter of penalty rate that should be set at a higher rate. Mrs. Sucipto firmly believed that setting low penalty rate violates the fairness principle and also causing the country to loose a great amount of revenue. Indeed, the Draft Bill only impose two, four or six percent penalty rate for non-repatriated assets and one to three percent penalty rate for repatriated assets.
“Many factions within the House demands the increase of the penalty rate to around five to 15 percent. However, several factions such as the Prosperous Justice Party factions demands to repeal administrative sanctions and only enforce penal sanctions. Under the penal sanctions, the penalty rate will be set at 25 to 30 percent of the applicable General Taxation Policy (Ketentuan Umum Perpajakan - KUP) rate,” asserted lawmaker Ecky Awal Mucharam (Commission XI) on 27 May 2016.
Thirdly, there are also the matter of Article 15 of the Draft Bill regarding information and data of tax-amnesty participants which states that Information and data contained in the Tax-Amnesty Application Letter cannot be the basis for preliminary investigations, investigations, and/or criminal prosecutions against any taxpayers.
“We demand that this Article only applies to tax crimes. Any data and information regarding taxpayers must still be allowed to be used for the preliminary investigations and investigations of other crimes such as corruption, narcotics, terrorism, and human trafficking,” asserted lawmaker Mucharam.
Nonetheless, the Draft Bill has officially pass into law on the middle of June 2016. However, the PKS faction firmly demanded revisions for several provisions incorporated under the now Tax-Amnesty Bill such as Article 3 (5) which defines the object of tax-amnesty, Article 4 which regulates penalty rate and facilities, and Article 20 which regulates data and information contained within any affidavit made by tax-amnesty applicants.
In essence, the Tax-Amnesty Bill has passed into law and will be effective until 31 March 2017. Minister Brodjonegoro further revealed that the specific timeframe was established in order to avoid tax lawsuit during the implementation of tax-amnesty policy.
(rfs)
Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L. Makmur
After a prolonged deliberation process accompanied with dissent and unrest among various factions within the House of Representatives (House), a plenary session (rapat paripurna) which was led by House Speaker, Ade Komarudin, has finally passed the Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty (Tax-Amnesty Bill) into a law on Tuesday, 28 June 2016.
Looking back at the very beginning, after the subject was initially raised during a House’s plenary session and a lengthy lobbying process, a Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty was then officially incorporated into the 2015 National Legislation Program (Program Legislasi Nasional – “Prolegnas”).At first, a plenary meeting organized by the Legislation Board (Badan Legislasi or Baleg) agreed that the Draft Bill would become the government’s responsibility. However, after various discussions into the matter had been concluded, the lawmakers and the government had both agreed to classify it as a joint initiative of both parties.
However, the though deliberation process with no immediate conclusion resulted the House failed to pass the Draft Bill in 2015 as planned . Consequently, the Draft Bill then automatically listed as part of the 2016 Prolegnas instead in order to allow a sufficient time to properly discuss this particular matter in greater detail. Even then, the deliberation of the Draft Bill itself remained stagnant up to April 2016. In fact, the deliberation was also forced to a halt due to several factions demanding direct discussions with President Joko Widodo.
Not long after, Indonesia was shook by the uproar caused by the leak of the so-called “Panama Papers” which also mention some 2,000 Indonesian citizens and companies. This event proves the long-held suspicion that major, high-earning taxpayers in the country have been deliberately avoiding their tax obligations by establishing offshore companies in tax heaven countries.
Bambang Brodjonegoro, the Minister of Finance, ventured an opinion as regards this matter. According to Minister Brodjonegoro, the Directorate General of Tax can crosscheck their data with information contained within the Panama Papers for the purpose of assessing offshore assets owned by Indonesian taxpayers. The leak of the Panama Papers has strengthened the importance of the Draft Bill in order to repatriate taxpayers assets currently parked outside the country.
“The tax-amnesty policy represents a momentum to holistically revitalize taxation policy,” asserted Minister Brodjonegoro on Wednesday, 6 April 2016.
Meanwhile, various non-governmental organizations (NGO) believed that a tax-amnesty policy is not the proper solution for Indonesia. This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA). Mrs. Sucipto asserted that the deliberation of the Draft Bill is in contradiction to the law enforcement policy [against tax offenders] announced by the Directorate General of Tax, and also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
“Therefore, we 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 on Thursday, 14 April 2016.
Nonetheless, the public controversy does not put the deliberation of the Draft Bill to an end. There are three essential matters that becomes the focus of discussion at the House. Firstly, there is the initiative to introduce tax-amnesty as part of tax reformation policy. The tax reform itself would cover tax regulations, administrations, and institutional reform. From the very start, the House always emphasized that tax-amnesty is a part of tax reformation.
Secondly, there is the matter of penalty rate that should be set at a higher rate. Mrs. Sucipto firmly believed that setting low penalty rate violates the fairness principle and also causing the country to loose a great amount of revenue. Indeed, the Draft Bill only impose two, four or six percent penalty rate for non-repatriated assets and one to three percent penalty rate for repatriated assets.
“Many factions within the House demands the increase of the penalty rate to around five to 15 percent. However, several factions such as the Prosperous Justice Party factions demands to repeal administrative sanctions and only enforce penal sanctions. Under the penal sanctions, the penalty rate will be set at 25 to 30 percent of the applicable General Taxation Policy (Ketentuan Umum Perpajakan - KUP) rate,” asserted lawmaker Ecky Awal Mucharam (Commission XI) on 27 May 2016.
Thirdly, there are also the matter of Article 15 of the Draft Bill regarding information and data of tax-amnesty participants which states that Information and data contained in the Tax-Amnesty Application Letter cannot be the basis for preliminary investigations, investigations, and/or criminal prosecutions against any taxpayers.
“We demand that this Article only applies to tax crimes. Any data and information regarding taxpayers must still be allowed to be used for the preliminary investigations and investigations of other crimes such as corruption, narcotics, terrorism, and human trafficking,” asserted lawmaker Mucharam.
Nonetheless, the Draft Bill has officially pass into law on the middle of June 2016. However, the PKS faction firmly demanded revisions for several provisions incorporated under the now Tax-Amnesty Bill such as Article 3 (5) which defines the object of tax-amnesty, Article 4 which regulates penalty rate and facilities, and Article 20 which regulates data and information contained within any affidavit made by tax-amnesty applicants.
In essence, the Tax-Amnesty Bill has passed into law and will be effective until 31 March 2017. Minister Brodjonegoro further revealed that the specific timeframe was established in order to avoid tax lawsuit during the implementation of tax-amnesty policy.
Looking back at the very beginning, after the subject was initially raised during a House’s plenary session and a lengthy lobbying process, a Draft Bill on Tax Amnesty was then officially incorporated into the 2015 National Legislation Program (Program Legislasi Nasional – “Prolegnas”).At first, a plenary meeting organized by the Legislation Board (Badan Legislasi or Baleg) agreed that the Draft Bill would become the government’s responsibility. However, after various discussions into the matter had been concluded, the lawmakers and the government had both agreed to classify it as a joint initiative of both parties.
However, the though deliberation process with no immediate conclusion resulted the House failed to pass the Draft Bill in 2015 as planned . Consequently, the Draft Bill then automatically listed as part of the 2016 Prolegnas instead in order to allow a sufficient time to properly discuss this particular matter in greater detail. Even then, the deliberation of the Draft Bill itself remained stagnant up to April 2016. In fact, the deliberation was also forced to a halt due to several factions demanding direct discussions with President Joko Widodo.
Not long after, Indonesia was shook by the uproar caused by the leak of the so-called “Panama Papers” which also mention some 2,000 Indonesian citizens and companies. This event proves the long-held suspicion that major, high-earning taxpayers in the country have been deliberately avoiding their tax obligations by establishing offshore companies in tax heaven countries.
Bambang Brodjonegoro, the Minister of Finance, ventured an opinion as regards this matter. According to Minister Brodjonegoro, the Directorate General of Tax can crosscheck their data with information contained within the Panama Papers for the purpose of assessing offshore assets owned by Indonesian taxpayers. The leak of the Panama Papers has strengthened the importance of the Draft Bill in order to repatriate taxpayers assets currently parked outside the country.
“The tax-amnesty policy represents a momentum to holistically revitalize taxation policy,” asserted Minister Brodjonegoro on Wednesday, 6 April 2016.
Meanwhile, various non-governmental organizations (NGO) believed that a tax-amnesty policy is not the proper solution for Indonesia. This opinion was expressed by Yenny Sucipto, the Secretary General of the Indonesian Forum for Budgetary Transparency (FITRA). Mrs. Sucipto asserted that the deliberation of the Draft Bill is in contradiction to the law enforcement policy [against tax offenders] announced by the Directorate General of Tax, and also likened the deliberation of the Draft Bill to rolling out a “red carpet” for tax offenders.
“Therefore, we 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 on Thursday, 14 April 2016.
Nonetheless, the public controversy does not put the deliberation of the Draft Bill to an end. There are three essential matters that becomes the focus of discussion at the House. Firstly, there is the initiative to introduce tax-amnesty as part of tax reformation policy. The tax reform itself would cover tax regulations, administrations, and institutional reform. From the very start, the House always emphasized that tax-amnesty is a part of tax reformation.
Secondly, there is the matter of penalty rate that should be set at a higher rate. Mrs. Sucipto firmly believed that setting low penalty rate violates the fairness principle and also causing the country to loose a great amount of revenue. Indeed, the Draft Bill only impose two, four or six percent penalty rate for non-repatriated assets and one to three percent penalty rate for repatriated assets.
“Many factions within the House demands the increase of the penalty rate to around five to 15 percent. However, several factions such as the Prosperous Justice Party factions demands to repeal administrative sanctions and only enforce penal sanctions. Under the penal sanctions, the penalty rate will be set at 25 to 30 percent of the applicable General Taxation Policy (Ketentuan Umum Perpajakan - KUP) rate,” asserted lawmaker Ecky Awal Mucharam (Commission XI) on 27 May 2016.
Thirdly, there are also the matter of Article 15 of the Draft Bill regarding information and data of tax-amnesty participants which states that Information and data contained in the Tax-Amnesty Application Letter cannot be the basis for preliminary investigations, investigations, and/or criminal prosecutions against any taxpayers.
“We demand that this Article only applies to tax crimes. Any data and information regarding taxpayers must still be allowed to be used for the preliminary investigations and investigations of other crimes such as corruption, narcotics, terrorism, and human trafficking,” asserted lawmaker Mucharam.
Nonetheless, the Draft Bill has officially pass into law on the middle of June 2016. However, the PKS faction firmly demanded revisions for several provisions incorporated under the now Tax-Amnesty Bill such as Article 3 (5) which defines the object of tax-amnesty, Article 4 which regulates penalty rate and facilities, and Article 20 which regulates data and information contained within any affidavit made by tax-amnesty applicants.
In essence, the Tax-Amnesty Bill has passed into law and will be effective until 31 March 2017. Minister Brodjonegoro further revealed that the specific timeframe was established in order to avoid tax lawsuit during the implementation of tax-amnesty policy.
(rfs)