TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents ..................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................2
1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................2
1.2 Problems ..............................................................................................................2
1.3 Goals ....................................................................................................................2
1.4 Benefits ................................................................................................................2
Chapter 2 Content ................................................................................................................3
2.1 Settlement Through Direktorat Jendral Pajak ..................................................... 3
2.2 Settlement Through BPSP and Tax Court (Pengadilan Pajak) ............................ 5
2.3 Controversy of PTUN .......................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3 Conclusion and Suggest .................................................................................... 11
3.1 Conclusion .........................................................................................................11
3.2 Suggest ...............................................................................................................11
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................12

1
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The requirement for people to pay taxes sometimes are not directly proportional to the
level of awareness of the taxpayer to obey with these provisions. Limitations of the
government through the apparatus collectors tax also led to the emergence of problems with
disputes on taxation.

Issues tax disputes from time to time taken by the ruling government by way of
dispute resolution institutions taxes. During the Dutch East Indies government, in this country
has a tax courts established by ordinance 1915 (Gazette No. 707) by the name of the Raad
van het beroep voor Belastingzaken (Badan Banding Administrasi Pajak), which is then
replaced with the ordinance January 27, 1927, Statute Book of 1927 No. 29 on the Peraturan
Pertimbangan Urusan Pajak (Regeling van het beroep in Belastingzaken). Furthermore, the
institution in charge to do a sattlement of tax disputes is changed in accordance with the
regulations made. In this paper will discuss the settlement through the Direktorat Jendral
Pjak, the settlement through the Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak and the controversy of
PTUN ( Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara )

1.2 Problems

1. How does the tax dispute sattlement through the Direktorat Jendral Pajak?
2. How the tax dispute sattlement through the Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak ?
3. How is the controversy as a result of the settlement through the PTUN ( Peradilan Tata
Usaha Negara )
1.3 Goals
1. to find out how the settlement of a tax dispute through the Direktorat Jendral Pajak
2. to know how is the tax dispute resolution through the Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak
3. to know how is the controversy caused by the settlement through PTUN

1.4 Benefits

To help the student know about the tax dispute and the settlement of tax dispute.

2
 CHAPTER II
CONTENT

2.1 Settlement Through Direktorat Jendral Pajak

From the results of the examination conducted by Direktorat Jendral Pajak, so there
will be Surat Ketetapan Pajak (SKP), that can lead the taxpayer to be less payment, over
payment, and nil. If the tax payer doesnt agree with this, so there will be dispute over
tax (Sengketa Pajak). The first step to discharge this problem is to bring the submission
of tax objection for the SKP letter. After that if tax payer still doesnt satisfy with the
decision of tax objection so the taxpayer can ask an appeal . The last step that can be
done by the WP in the tax dispute is a judicial review to the Supreme Court.

Taxation was made by DJP through examination proses, research proses, and
verification proses. The provisions that has been published : Surat Ketetapan Pajak
Lebih Bayar (SKPLB), Surat Ketetapan Pajak Kurang Bayar (SKPKB), Surat Ketetapan
Pajak Kurang Bayar Tambahan (SKPKBT), dan Surat Ketetapan Pajak Nihil (SKPN).
And there will be Surat Tagihan Pajak (STP) for the administrassion fee.

If the tax payer have an objection to the tax assessment , they should submit in writing
to DJP and must be filed within a period of 3 (three) months since the tax assessments
sent. Except the taxayer can demonstrate that the period of time that can not be fulfilled
because of the outside powers. Because of the ta objection, DJP will render a decision at
the latest within a period of twelve (12) months after the letter of objection received.

There are four (4) conditions that must be met in this tax objction. First, the
objection petition which has been signed by taxpayer to the DJP through the head of the
local Tax Office for SKPKB, SKPKBT, SKPLB, SKPN, and cutting and the collection
by a third party.

Second, the application is submitted in writing in the Indonesian language by stating

the amount of tax payable according to calculations by the tax payer and state the
obvious reasons.

3
 Third, the objection petition must be filed within a period of 3 (three) months since
the tax assessments are sent, except taxpayer can demonstrate that the period of time that
can not be fulfilled because of outside powers. Objections that do not meet the
requirements of the first to the third, it is not regarded as an objection letter, so it is not
considered.

Lastly, the fourth, in the case of taxpayer filed objection to the assessment, then the
WP required to settle the tax accrued at least a number of which have been approved by
the WP in the discussion of the final results of the examination, before the letter of
objection delivered.

After an inspection on the legal remedy of tax objection, there are four possible
decisions that can be issued by the Director General of tax:

1. Denied

2. Accepted partially

3. Accepted entirely

4. Adding tax assessments

It should be noted that if the objection petition rejected and taxpayer did not appeal,
the taxpayer will get an administrative sanctions amounting to 50% (fifty percent) of the
amount of tax based on the tax that approved in tax objection reduced by taxes paid
before filing an objection. Anther than objection petition, taxpayer can apply for a
reduction or elimination of administrative sanction, and the reduction or cancellation of
the tax assessment. If in the tax assessment found that there were errors due to
misspelled or incorrectly calculated, and / or erroneous application of certain provisions
of the tax legislation, either at the request of taxpayer or from the fiscus , the tax
assessment can be fixed.

If then, taxpayer is still not satisfied with the Decree of tax objection that he
submitted, then the taxpayer still can appeal to the tax court. The appeal submitted in
writing in the Indonesian language within three (3) months from the decision received
with enclosing the Objection Decision. Against one (1) Decision submitted one (1)
Letter of Appeal. Tax Court decision should be set no later than twelve (12) months from
the Appeal Letter is received.

4
 In case, if the appeal is rejected or granted in apart, so the taxpayer subject must pay
an administrative sanctions amounting to 100% (one hundred percent) of the amount of
tax under Appeal Decision reduced by the payment of taxes that have been paid before
filing an tax objection.

Furthermore, if WP was also not satisfied with the Decision of Appeals, then the WP
still have the right to judicial review ( Peninjauan Kembali ) to the Supreme Court. PK
petition can be filed only 1 (one) time to the Supreme Court by the Tax Court.

PK petition must be filed within a period of at least 3 (three) months from

knowing deception or trickery or from the decision of Criminal Court Judge permanent
legal power or there is a discovery of new evidence or from the written appeal is sent.
Then last, the Supreme Court must make a decision within a maximum period of six (6)
months since the PK petition request is accepted. Thereby it is clear that there are
already legal certainty which guarantees the rights to file an objection, appeal, and / or
PK for tax assessments issued by the DJP.

2.2 Settlement Through BPSP and Tax Court ( Pengadilan Pajak )

The requirement for people to pay taxes sometimes are not directly proportional to the
level of awareness of the taxpayer to obey with these provisions. Limitations of the
government through the apparatus collectors tax also led to the emergence of problems
with disputes on taxation.

Issues tax disputes from time to time taken by the ruling government by way of
dispute resolution institutions taxes. During the Dutch East Indies government, in this
country has a tax courts established by ordinance 1915 (Gazette No. 707) by the name of
the Raad van het beroep voor Belastingzaken (Badan Banding Administrasi Pajak), which
is then replaced with the ordinance January 27, 1927, Statute Book of 1927 No. 29 on the
Peraturan Pertimbangan Urusan Pajak (Regeling van het beroep in Belastingzaken).
Furthermore, the institution by Law No. 5 of 1959 was changed to Majelis Pertimbangan
Pajak whose task is to give a decision on the letter of appeal examination of state taxes
and local taxes. Under Law No. 6 of 1983, MPP imposed as judicial instituton are

5
legitimate and does not conflict with the judicial authority as stated in Law No. 14 of
1970. Act No. 6 of 1983 set this in Article 27 paragraph (1) which reads as follows.

" Wajib Pajak dapat mengajukan permohonan banding hanya kepada badan peradilan
pajak terhadap keputusan mengenai keberatannya yang ditetapkan oleh Direktorat
Jenderal Pajak."

Furthermore, paragraph (2) on the same Article provides as follows.

" Sebelum badan peradilan pajak sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dibentuk,
permohonan banding diajukan kepada Majelis Pertimbangan Pajak, yang putusannya
bukan merupakan keputusan Tata Usaha Negara."

As the development of rules concerning taxes and increasing the potential for tax
disputes, MPP is considered inadequate in the resolution of tax disputes. Therefore, the
government felt the need to form a judicial institution of taxation which more
comprehensive and established through legislation. The aim is to ensure the rights and
responsibility of the taxpayer in accordance with the legislation in the area of taxation and
to provide a legal ruling on a tax dispute. The decision of the judiciary institution of taxes
can be used as guidance in implementing the tax laws so that the provisions in it can
provide legal certainty and fairness for all parties.

Thus, pursuant to UU No. 17 of 1997 established the Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa

Pajak (BPSP), the direction and objectives of BPSP is as follows.

a. BPSP duty to examine and decide the tax disputes, such as:

1. appeal against the decision of the competent authority implementation;

2. lawsuit against the implementation of taxation legislation in the field of billing.

b. BPSP decision is final and has the power of eksekutorial and has same legal domicile
in common with another court which has had permanent legal force.

c. An appeal or lawsuit to BPSP is the last legal effort for taxpayers and the decision
cannot be sued to the general courts or the Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara ( PTUN ).

6
 In the law also specified that in order to get justice in tax, a taxpayer may take paths as
follows.

a. Tax objection and appeals to BPSP.

b. Paths through the Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN)

c. Paths through the public courts ( pengadilan umum ) .

BPSP also determined the existence of a judiciary tax only to resolve administrative
disputes, namely in terms of the calculation and accounting, not on criminal tax ( pidana
pajak ).

Although it is not contrary to Law No. 14 of 1970, BPSP in fact not a judicial
institution that culminating in the Supreme Court ( Mahkamah Agung ). Therefore, we
need a tax court in in Indonesia which able to create justice and the certainty in the
settlement of tax disputes.

On these considerations, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia passed Law

No. 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court (pengadilan pajak ) (UU No. 14 of 2002).
Definition of the tax court described in Article 2, that " Pengadilan Pajak adalah badan
peradilan yang melaksanakan kekuasaan kehakiman bagi Wajib Pajak atau penanggung
pajak yang mencari keadilan terhadap sengketa pajak."

Tax dispute resolution process through the Pengadilan Pajak needs to be done
quickly, therefore, in UU No. 14 of 2000 set a restrictions on turnaround time, both at the
level of the Pengadilan Pajak or Mahkamah Agung.

In terms of Appeal is adjusted with the large amount of tax payable, tax dispute
resolution through the Pengadilan pajak requires taxpayers to pay off 50% (fifty percent)
of the tax liability in advance. Nonetheless, the settlement process of taxation dispute
through the Pengadilan Pajak did not prevent the process of tax collection. Pengadilan
Pajak in this Law is specific to do a settlement on tax disputes, in some case below:

1. Tax legal proceedings in principle can be done openly, but in certain cases and
specifically to safeguard the privacy of the applicant or the defendant's appeal, the

7
 trial may be declared closed, while the reading of the decision Tax Court Judge held
the hearing open to the public.
2. Taxation dispute settlement require special Judge personnel with expertise in the field
taxation and certified Bachelor of Law or other scholars.
3. Disputes which processed in special tax court is disputes concerning in taxation
4. Tax Court Decisions, explain about the amount of unpaid tax from the taxpayer, with
form of taxation counting technically, so that the taxpayer obtain legal certainty about
the amount of tax payable imposed on him. As a result of the Tax Court's decision
types, in addition to other types of common decisions applied to the general courts,
also be granted in part, granted in full, or to increase the number Taxes accrued.

2.3 Controversy of PTUN

Historically, both when he was named Raad van beroep in Belastingzaken

until changed its name to Majelis Pertimbangan Pajak in the 1950s, the level of
dispute resolution (the decision) MPP shall be final and binding on both parties, both
DJP and the taxpayer.
However, after the enactment of Law (UU) No. 5 of 1986 about Peradilan
Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN) dated December 29, 1986, The new controversy arose
concerning the status of MPP. Decision MPP is final and binding the WP and DJP,
given the opportunity to be sued again by WP through the PTUN.
The provisions on the matter actually only contained in explanation of Article
48 of Law No. 5 of 1986,which classified the decision MPP as an example of
administrative decisions that can be compared to the administrative court.
However, the inclusion of MPP decision as one example of a decision
administration contains far reaching consequences. Since then, the court in the PTUN
said that the MPP is part of Badan Tata Usaha Negara, so that they are authorized to
inspect the MPP decision of the lawsuit.
As has been stated by the DGT official, Drs Abroni Nasution (Director of Tax
Regulation at the time), in a seminar which held Center for Fiscal and Monetary
Studies in 1993, explanation of Article 48 of Law No. 5 of 1986, which added the
complexity of tax problem in Indonesia.

8
 Explanation of the article has created a dualism, even more appropriately
called pluralism institutions to handle tax matters in Indonesia. Pluralism arose
because, taxation disputes in Indonesia is handled by a variety of different agencies.
Institutions that deal with tax disputes consisting of one institution administration of
justice is not pure, and two purely administrative agency namely MPP and PTUN.
Tax disputes under the authority MPP include a petition appeals on the tax
assessment letter, Surat Keputusan Kelebihan Bayar and Surat Pemberitahuan Pajak
Terhutang.
Then, the authority of the PTUN according to Law No. 5 Year 1986 that all
the tax disputes which can not be appealed to MPP and all MPP appeal decision that
unsatisfactory the taxpayer.
Since the MPP's decision grouped as an administrative decision, that turned
out the status of MPP itself as a judicial institution that have authority to handle
appeals taxation. DJP and MPP decisons becomes equally can be appealed again to
the PTUN

The negative effects are :

1. It has been used by the parties of taxpayer for reject taxation liabilities.
Some taxpayer petition of tax objection that rejected by MPP, and then can
appealed to the PTUN with MPP as the First Defendant and DJP as second
Defendant.

2. Surat paksa cant be functioning effectively, because the PTUN may issue
a statement to delaying the implementation of Surat Paksa. As pointed out
by the DJP, the malfunction of the MPP and Surat Paksa, makes numbers of
tunggakan pajak increasing. This matter also give an impact on state
revenues.

3. In addition, there is also more fundamental result, this make the creation of
unfair treatment between the parties that have a tax problem. This matter
occurred, since taxpayer may file a lawsuit to the PTUN if they are
dissatisfied against the decision of MPP. However, on the other hand the
DJP can not do the same thing when MPP decision not beneficial to the
DJP. MPP as a part of Badan Tata Usaha Negara also give the

9
 psychological impact, because then MPP tend to choose "the safe way "
which is with more give the win decision to tax payer against DJP ".
It had also complained of by the Director General of Taxation, Dr Fuad
Bawazier, by giving the example that during year 1992 and 1993 almost 90
percent MPP decision is gave a victory for taxpayer.

Judicial bodies Taxes

Uncertainty in peradilan pajak , has encourage the opinion about the need
to establish an special court in taxation. It is believed that the establishment of the
agency would provide certainty to taxpayer in their efforts to obtain justice, and on the
other side can better secure state revenues from taxes. Moreover, the current state
revenue from the tax is a "primadonna" to drive the wheels of development, considering
foreign loans in the future is expected to be difficult to increase.

10
 CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

3.1 Conclusion
The requirement for people to pay taxes sometimes are not directly proportional to the
level of awareness of the taxpayer to obey with these provisions. Limitations of the
government through the apparatus collectors tax also led to the emergence of problems with
disputes on taxation.

So, there will be a settlement that conduct through Direktorat Jendral Pajak, Badan
Penyelesian Sengketa Pajak but now is conduct by Pengadilan Pajak ( as the result of UU No.
14 Tahun 2000), and the last is settlement through Mahkamah Agung.

From the explanation above, we can conclude that :

1. Through the DJP, the taxpayer may file an tax objection and the reduction or
correction of tax assessments
2. Through Pengadilan Pajak stages of a tax dispute settlement that can be done is
the completion of the appeal ( banding) and lawsuit (gugatan)
3. Through Mahkamah Agung stages of a tax dispute settlement that can be done is
the completion of judicial review ( peninjauan kembali)

3.2 Suggestion
The diversity of the judiciary institution of tax in Indonesia may cause uncertainty and
too time consuming. Therefore, the government should created an institution that really
concern in tax problems. As this present moment government has issued Law No. 14
Year 2000 on tax justice, this is a good first step to clarify the process in the tax disputes.
And by the created of Tax Court ( Pengadilan Pajak ) will create fairness and certainty in
terms of settlement of tax disputes.

11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://www.pajak.go.id/content/selayang-pandang-sengketa-pajak

https://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1996/12/10/0063.html

http://ketentuan.pajak.go.id/index.php?r=aturan/cetak&idcrypt=oJafoZ4=

http://ketentuan.pajak.go.id/index.php?r=aturan/cetak&idcrypt=pg==

http://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/detail/cl2072/cara-penyelesaian-sengketa-pajak

www.setpp.depkeu.go.id/.../SEKILAS%20KEBERAD

https://www.library.ohiou.edu/indopubs/1996/12/10/0063.html

12