Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami
Marcell Sihombing, Fitri N. Heriani
The House of Representatives has officially passed Law No. 11 of 2016 on Tax Amnesty (Tax-Amnesty Law) after a prolonged deliberation process which has been marked by much dissent and unrest among the various debating factions. At a recent event held in order to disseminate the new Tax-Amnesty Law, the government highlighted the advantages of its new policy for taxpayers, such as the abolishment of tax-arrears, administrative sanctions and tax-crime sanctions, as well as the termination of any ongoing inspections and investigations into potential tax crimes.
However, the Indonesian People Resistance Union (Serikat Perjuangan Rakyat Indonesia - SPRI), in conjunction with two Indonesian Citizens named Samsul Hidayat and Abdul Kodir, have already filed for a judicial review of this piece of legislation with the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi - MK), arguing that several provisions incorporated under the Tax-Amnesty Law appear to legitimize the practice of money laundering and also impair the country’s law enforcement measures as a whole.
“It’s as if the Tax-Amnesty Law has lent official legitimacy to money laundering practices and has also simultaneously demolished the country’s applicable law-enforcement norms,” asserted Sugeng Teguh Santoso, the lawyer representing the applicants, after filing for the judicial review at the MK Building on Tuesday, 13 July 2016.
Mr. Santoso further explained that the tax amnesty provisions were prone to misappropriation by the perpetrators of white collar crimes who parked their assets outside Indonesia in order to conceal their origins. Thus, after an affidavit has been obtained from the Minister of Finance, such assets will be considered legitimate assets and can thus be repatriated under the tax-amnesty scheme without any legal redress whatsoever.
Mr. Santoso also asserts that the Tax-Amnesty Law will also hinder public information transparency and the so-called whistle-blower system. This is due to the fact that the Tax-Amnesty Law prohibits the disclosure of any information relating to tax arrears or to data owned by the Ministry of Finance. Moreover, any violations of this provision will be subject to criminal sanctions. Thus, the filing of civil lawsuits against tax offenders will be the only available option.
Commenting on this matter, tax expert Yustinus Prasnowo asserted that the current request for a judicial review represented as a worthwhile challenge to the new Tax-Amnesty Law.
“It is better for the Tax-Amnesty Law to be challenged. If it [the Law] wins, then at least its implementation will then be legitimized,” Mr. Prasnowo told hukumonline on Thursday, 14 July 2016.
Mr. Prasnowo further asserted that of the 21 demands listed in the judicial-review application, only a small number were of genuine value. Indeed, according to Mr. Prasnowo, most of the demands merely reveal that the judicial-review petitioners lack a comprehensive understanding of the Tax Amnesty Law, no doubt due to a lack of information. This is mainly due to the lack of public participation during the Tax-Amnesty Law’s deliberation stages.
Mr. Prasnowo also offered an opinion on the issue of money-laundering crime. According to Law No. 36 of 2008 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1983 on Income Tax, there are no provisions or limitations which relate to the origins of a taxpayer’s income. For Mr. Prasnowo, this means that the new tax-amnesty policy does not eliminate the criminal component of any money-laundering activity engaged in by the taxpayers.
“If the Tax-Amnesty Law is considered to nullify the predicate crime [the original tax-crime], then this is a direct consequence to the establishment of this tax-amnesty policy. However, if taxpayers also engage in both tax and money-laundering crimes, then they can still be prosecuted for their money-laundering activities,” asserted Mr. Prasnowo.
Mr. Prasnowo also claimed that the repatriation of any taxpayer assets currently situated outside Indonesia was actually optional rather than mandatory, because repatriation is not facilitated under the current Foreign Currency Traffic Law (UU Lalu Lintas Devisa).
As regards the matter of the unfair treatment of law-abiding taxpayers, Mr. Prasnowo believes that the tax-amnesty policy will have little to no effect on law-abiding taxpayers. This due to the fact that the obligation to pay taxes is mandatory for all Indonesian citizens, although the tax-amnesty policy may even reduce the amount of tax that has to be paid by taxpayers.
Indeed, as one of the experts originally asked for an opinion during the deliberations of the Tax-Amnesty Law, Mr. Prasnowo suggested that the government should grant rewards to law-abiding taxpayers. Unfortunately though, his suggestion was turned down, due to no definitive criteria for a law-abiding taxpayer having been formulated, and also due to the fact that micro-, small-, and medium-scale businesses (UKM) are only subject to a 0.5% tax rate in the first place.
“What needs to clearly demonstrated is that the tax-amnesty policy can actually increase Indonesia’s tax revenue. If the government declares some IDR 2,000 trillion in tax revenue, then there should be an IDR 100 to 150 trillion annual increase in tax revenue, alongside an increase in the number of taxpayers amounting to between 10,000 and 20,000 individuals/corporations over the current number of taxpayers, which amounts to some 30,000 individuals/corporations. Thus, the amount of taxpayers should eventually reach 40,000 to 50,000 persons/corporations in total,” Mr. Prasnowo concluded.
(hs/sp)
The House of Representatives has officially passed Law No. 11 of 2016 on Tax Amnesty (Tax-Amnesty Law) after a prolonged deliberation process which has been marked by much dissent and unrest among the various debating factions. At a recent event held in order to disseminate the new Tax-Amnesty Law, the government highlighted the advantages of its new policy for taxpayers, such as the abolishment of tax-arrears, administrative sanctions and tax-crime sanctions, as well as the termination of any ongoing inspections and investigations into potential tax crimes.
However, the Indonesian People Resistance Union (Serikat Perjuangan Rakyat Indonesia - SPRI), in conjunction with two Indonesian Citizens named Samsul Hidayat and Abdul Kodir, have already filed for a judicial review of this piece of legislation with the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi - MK), arguing that several provisions incorporated under the Tax-Amnesty Law appear to legitimize the practice of money laundering and also impair the country’s law enforcement measures as a whole.
“It’s as if the Tax-Amnesty Law has lent official legitimacy to money laundering practices and has also simultaneously demolished the country’s applicable law-enforcement norms,” asserted Sugeng Teguh Santoso, the lawyer representing the applicants, after filing for the judicial review at the MK Building on Tuesday, 13 July 2016.
Mr. Santoso further explained that the tax amnesty provisions were prone to misappropriation by the perpetrators of white collar crimes who parked their assets outside Indonesia in order to conceal their origins. Thus, after an affidavit has been obtained from the Minister of Finance, such assets will be considered legitimate assets and can thus be repatriated under the tax-amnesty scheme without any legal redress whatsoever.
Mr. Santoso also asserts that the Tax-Amnesty Law will also hinder public information transparency and the so-called whistle-blower system. This is due to the fact that the Tax-Amnesty Law prohibits the disclosure of any information relating to tax arrears or to data owned by the Ministry of Finance. Moreover, any violations of this provision will be subject to criminal sanctions. Thus, the filing of civil lawsuits against tax offenders will be the only available option.
Commenting on this matter, tax expert Yustinus Prasnowo asserted that the current request for a judicial review represented as a worthwhile challenge to the new Tax-Amnesty Law.
“It is better for the Tax-Amnesty Law to be challenged. If it [the Law] wins, then at least its implementation will then be legitimized,” Mr. Prasnowo told hukumonline on Thursday, 14 July 2016.
Mr. Prasnowo further asserted that of the 21 demands listed in the judicial-review application, only a small number were of genuine value. Indeed, according to Mr. Prasnowo, most of the demands merely reveal that the judicial-review petitioners lack a comprehensive understanding of the Tax Amnesty Law, no doubt due to a lack of information. This is mainly due to the lack of public participation during the Tax-Amnesty Law’s deliberation stages.
Mr. Prasnowo also offered an opinion on the issue of money-laundering crime. According to Law No. 36 of 2008 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1983 on Income Tax, there are no provisions or limitations which relate to the origins of a taxpayer’s income. For Mr. Prasnowo, this means that the new tax-amnesty policy does not eliminate the criminal component of any money-laundering activity engaged in by the taxpayers.
“If the Tax-Amnesty Law is considered to nullify the predicate crime [the original tax-crime], then this is a direct consequence to the establishment of this tax-amnesty policy. However, if taxpayers also engage in both tax and money-laundering crimes, then they can still be prosecuted for their money-laundering activities,” asserted Mr. Prasnowo.
Mr. Prasnowo also claimed that the repatriation of any taxpayer assets currently situated outside Indonesia was actually optional rather than mandatory, because repatriation is not facilitated under the current Foreign Currency Traffic Law (UU Lalu Lintas Devisa).
As regards the matter of the unfair treatment of law-abiding taxpayers, Mr. Prasnowo believes that the tax-amnesty policy will have little to no effect on law-abiding taxpayers. This due to the fact that the obligation to pay taxes is mandatory for all Indonesian citizens, although the tax-amnesty policy may even reduce the amount of tax that has to be paid by taxpayers.
Indeed, as one of the experts originally asked for an opinion during the deliberations of the Tax-Amnesty Law, Mr. Prasnowo suggested that the government should grant rewards to law-abiding taxpayers. Unfortunately though, his suggestion was turned down, due to no definitive criteria for a law-abiding taxpayer having been formulated, and also due to the fact that micro-, small-, and medium-scale businesses (UKM) are only subject to a 0.5% tax rate in the first place.
“What needs to clearly demonstrated is that the tax-amnesty policy can actually increase Indonesia’s tax revenue. If the government declares some IDR 2,000 trillion in tax revenue, then there should be an IDR 100 to 150 trillion annual increase in tax revenue, alongside an increase in the number of taxpayers amounting to between 10,000 and 20,000 individuals/corporations over the current number of taxpayers, which amounts to some 30,000 individuals/corporations. Thus, the amount of taxpayers should eventually reach 40,000 to 50,000 persons/corporations in total,” Mr. Prasnowo concluded.
(hs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Fitri N. Heriani
The House of Representatives has officially passed Law No. 11 of 2016 on Tax Amnesty (Tax-Amnesty Law) after a prolonged deliberation process which has been marked by much dissent and unrest among the various debating factions. At a recent event held in order to disseminate the new Tax-Amnesty Law, the government highlighted the advantages of its new policy for taxpayers, such as the abolishment of tax-arrears, administrative sanctions and tax-crime sanctions, as well as the termination of any ongoing inspections and investigations into potential tax crimes.
However, the Indonesian People Resistance Union (Serikat Perjuangan Rakyat Indonesia - SPRI), in conjunction with two Indonesian Citizens named Samsul Hidayat and Abdul Kodir, have already filed for a judicial review of this piece of legislation with the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi - MK), arguing that several provisions incorporated under the Tax-Amnesty Law appear to legitimize the practice of money laundering and also impair the country’s law enforcement measures as a whole.
“It’s as if the Tax-Amnesty Law has lent official legitimacy to money laundering practices and has also simultaneously demolished the country’s applicable law-enforcement norms,” asserted Sugeng Teguh Santoso, the lawyer representing the applicants, after filing for the judicial review at the MK Building on Tuesday, 13 July 2016.
Mr. Santoso further explained that the tax amnesty provisions were prone to misappropriation by the perpetrators of white collar crimes who parked their assets outside Indonesia in order to conceal their origins. Thus, after an affidavit has been obtained from the Minister of Finance, such assets will be considered legitimate assets and can thus be repatriated under the tax-amnesty scheme without any legal redress whatsoever.
Mr. Santoso also asserts that the Tax-Amnesty Law will also hinder public information transparency and the so-called whistle-blower system. This is due to the fact that the Tax-Amnesty Law prohibits the disclosure of any information relating to tax arrears or to data owned by the Ministry of Finance. Moreover, any violations of this provision will be subject to criminal sanctions. Thus, the filing of civil lawsuits against tax offenders will be the only available option.
Commenting on this matter, tax expert Yustinus Prasnowo asserted that the current request for a judicial review represented as a worthwhile challenge to the new Tax-Amnesty Law.
“It is better for the Tax-Amnesty Law to be challenged. If it [the Law] wins, then at least its implementation will then be legitimized,” Mr. Prasnowo told hukumonline on Thursday, 14 July 2016.
Mr. Prasnowo further asserted that of the 21 demands listed in the judicial-review application, only a small number were of genuine value. Indeed, according to Mr. Prasnowo, most of the demands merely reveal that the judicial-review petitioners lack a comprehensive understanding of the Tax Amnesty Law, no doubt due to a lack of information. This is mainly due to the lack of public participation during the Tax-Amnesty Law’s deliberation stages.
Mr. Prasnowo also offered an opinion on the issue of money-laundering crime. According to Law No. 36 of 2008 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1983 on Income Tax, there are no provisions or limitations which relate to the origins of a taxpayer’s income. For Mr. Prasnowo, this means that the new tax-amnesty policy does not eliminate the criminal component of any money-laundering activity engaged in by the taxpayers.
“If the Tax-Amnesty Law is considered to nullify the predicate crime [the original tax-crime], then this is a direct consequence to the establishment of this tax-amnesty policy. However, if taxpayers also engage in both tax and money-laundering crimes, then they can still be prosecuted for their money-laundering activities,” asserted Mr. Prasnowo.
Mr. Prasnowo also claimed that the repatriation of any taxpayer assets currently situated outside Indonesia was actually optional rather than mandatory, because repatriation is not facilitated under the current Foreign Currency Traffic Law (UU Lalu Lintas Devisa).
As regards the matter of the unfair treatment of law-abiding taxpayers, Mr. Prasnowo believes that the tax-amnesty policy will have little to no effect on law-abiding taxpayers. This due to the fact that the obligation to pay taxes is mandatory for all Indonesian citizens, although the tax-amnesty policy may even reduce the amount of tax that has to be paid by taxpayers.
Indeed, as one of the experts originally asked for an opinion during the deliberations of the Tax-Amnesty Law, Mr. Prasnowo suggested that the government should grant rewards to law-abiding taxpayers. Unfortunately though, his suggestion was turned down, due to no definitive criteria for a law-abiding taxpayer having been formulated, and also due to the fact that micro-, small-, and medium-scale businesses (UKM) are only subject to a 0.5% tax rate in the first place.
“What needs to clearly demonstrated is that the tax-amnesty policy can actually increase Indonesia’s tax revenue. If the government declares some IDR 2,000 trillion in tax revenue, then there should be an IDR 100 to 150 trillion annual increase in tax revenue, alongside an increase in the number of taxpayers amounting to between 10,000 and 20,000 individuals/corporations over the current number of taxpayers, which amounts to some 30,000 individuals/corporations. Thus, the amount of taxpayers should eventually reach 40,000 to 50,000 persons/corporations in total,” Mr. Prasnowo concluded.
(hs/sp)
The House of Representatives has officially passed Law No. 11 of 2016 on Tax Amnesty (Tax-Amnesty Law) after a prolonged deliberation process which has been marked by much dissent and unrest among the various debating factions. At a recent event held in order to disseminate the new Tax-Amnesty Law, the government highlighted the advantages of its new policy for taxpayers, such as the abolishment of tax-arrears, administrative sanctions and tax-crime sanctions, as well as the termination of any ongoing inspections and investigations into potential tax crimes.
However, the Indonesian People Resistance Union (Serikat Perjuangan Rakyat Indonesia - SPRI), in conjunction with two Indonesian Citizens named Samsul Hidayat and Abdul Kodir, have already filed for a judicial review of this piece of legislation with the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi - MK), arguing that several provisions incorporated under the Tax-Amnesty Law appear to legitimize the practice of money laundering and also impair the country’s law enforcement measures as a whole.
“It’s as if the Tax-Amnesty Law has lent official legitimacy to money laundering practices and has also simultaneously demolished the country’s applicable law-enforcement norms,” asserted Sugeng Teguh Santoso, the lawyer representing the applicants, after filing for the judicial review at the MK Building on Tuesday, 13 July 2016.
Mr. Santoso further explained that the tax amnesty provisions were prone to misappropriation by the perpetrators of white collar crimes who parked their assets outside Indonesia in order to conceal their origins. Thus, after an affidavit has been obtained from the Minister of Finance, such assets will be considered legitimate assets and can thus be repatriated under the tax-amnesty scheme without any legal redress whatsoever.
Mr. Santoso also asserts that the Tax-Amnesty Law will also hinder public information transparency and the so-called whistle-blower system. This is due to the fact that the Tax-Amnesty Law prohibits the disclosure of any information relating to tax arrears or to data owned by the Ministry of Finance. Moreover, any violations of this provision will be subject to criminal sanctions. Thus, the filing of civil lawsuits against tax offenders will be the only available option.
Commenting on this matter, tax expert Yustinus Prasnowo asserted that the current request for a judicial review represented as a worthwhile challenge to the new Tax-Amnesty Law.
“It is better for the Tax-Amnesty Law to be challenged. If it [the Law] wins, then at least its implementation will then be legitimized,” Mr. Prasnowo told hukumonline on Thursday, 14 July 2016.
Mr. Prasnowo further asserted that of the 21 demands listed in the judicial-review application, only a small number were of genuine value. Indeed, according to Mr. Prasnowo, most of the demands merely reveal that the judicial-review petitioners lack a comprehensive understanding of the Tax Amnesty Law, no doubt due to a lack of information. This is mainly due to the lack of public participation during the Tax-Amnesty Law’s deliberation stages.
Mr. Prasnowo also offered an opinion on the issue of money-laundering crime. According to Law No. 36 of 2008 on the Fourth Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1983 on Income Tax, there are no provisions or limitations which relate to the origins of a taxpayer’s income. For Mr. Prasnowo, this means that the new tax-amnesty policy does not eliminate the criminal component of any money-laundering activity engaged in by the taxpayers.
“If the Tax-Amnesty Law is considered to nullify the predicate crime [the original tax-crime], then this is a direct consequence to the establishment of this tax-amnesty policy. However, if taxpayers also engage in both tax and money-laundering crimes, then they can still be prosecuted for their money-laundering activities,” asserted Mr. Prasnowo.
Mr. Prasnowo also claimed that the repatriation of any taxpayer assets currently situated outside Indonesia was actually optional rather than mandatory, because repatriation is not facilitated under the current Foreign Currency Traffic Law (UU Lalu Lintas Devisa).
As regards the matter of the unfair treatment of law-abiding taxpayers, Mr. Prasnowo believes that the tax-amnesty policy will have little to no effect on law-abiding taxpayers. This due to the fact that the obligation to pay taxes is mandatory for all Indonesian citizens, although the tax-amnesty policy may even reduce the amount of tax that has to be paid by taxpayers.
Indeed, as one of the experts originally asked for an opinion during the deliberations of the Tax-Amnesty Law, Mr. Prasnowo suggested that the government should grant rewards to law-abiding taxpayers. Unfortunately though, his suggestion was turned down, due to no definitive criteria for a law-abiding taxpayer having been formulated, and also due to the fact that micro-, small-, and medium-scale businesses (UKM) are only subject to a 0.5% tax rate in the first place.
“What needs to clearly demonstrated is that the tax-amnesty policy can actually increase Indonesia’s tax revenue. If the government declares some IDR 2,000 trillion in tax revenue, then there should be an IDR 100 to 150 trillion annual increase in tax revenue, alongside an increase in the number of taxpayers amounting to between 10,000 and 20,000 individuals/corporations over the current number of taxpayers, which amounts to some 30,000 individuals/corporations. Thus, the amount of taxpayers should eventually reach 40,000 to 50,000 persons/corporations in total,” Mr. Prasnowo concluded.
(hs/sp)