On entry options and tax dodger Sanctions Justice Pain Society

On entry options and tax dodger Sanctions Justice Pain Society
Criminal allegations of tax three Bakrie Group of companies with a value loss of about USD 2.1 trillion has become the public's attention. Why?

Because the third company, PT Bumi Resources, PT Kaltim Prima Coal and PT Arutmin Indonesia, is classified as large companies, which according to public consideration, is not supposed to happen such things. This information is certainly quite surprising. Criminal cases is carried out by PT Asian Agri Group, which allegedly cost the state USD 1.3 trillion, it is still in process at the Supreme Court and has not finished completely.
To be sure, the tax law already provides that any taxpayer (WP) is convicted of a crime, should bear the heavy penalties, both administrative sanction or criminal sanctions

Criminal tax

Criminal tax cases that have been processed Directorate General of Taxes was practically enough. Throughout 2008 to 2009, for example, the Directorate General of Taxes has handed over 65 cases of alleged tax crime to the prosecutor. Was convicted of 24 cases with the number of accused 26 people.

The number of taxpayers (WP) which are liable to be viewed very little. But, the number more or less highly relative. The purpose of tax law is not merely increase the number of tax payers who would be convicted, but rather on the purpose of fulfilling the state budget coffers.

The question, the criminal process by applying administrative sanctions is often a dilemma, especially with the existence of Article 44B of Act No. KUP. 6 of 2000 which amended by Act 16 of 2009. The dilemma is the issue of authority of Minister of Finance who may request the Attorney General to stop the process of investigation for the benefit of all state revenues.

Article was confirmed, the Attorney General may terminate a tax investigation if there is a request from the Minister of Finance based on the interests of national revenue Termination of investigation would be done if the tax payers to pay off tax debt plus penalties fines four times the amount of tax paid no or less.

That way, it can be concluded that the settlement of tax payments (administrative settlement) is more important than issues committed criminal acts. Tax issue seemed more inclined to issue mere acceptance

Indeed the issue is the authority of the state revenue minister of Finance and the issue of investigation is the Attorney General authority. If the Minister of Finance looked at the issue more important state revenue, according to the Law of KUP, the Attorney General may terminate the investigation as long as tax payers to pay off debt and the sanction

The problem is, if the authority of the Minister of Finance in Article 44B is used, the impression will arise Finance Minister intervenes legal process which is the authority of the Attorney General. If this is done, can be understood if there is no legal certainty.

But, if acceptance was not achieved, the Minister of Finance may use the authority in accordance with the Act. Is this wrong? Of course not. For what is included in Article 44B of Act when not in use?
Choice dilemma sanctions be interesting to see the debate from a different point of view, and that if the choice is made criminal, meaning it does not fit with the philosophy of the tax itself. However, if the administration made a choice, as interfere with legal certainty. This is the dilemma of whether to use the use of criminal sanctions or administrative.

Administrative sanctions if the option is selected, the value of losses of Rp 2.1 trillion, the country will get the money amounting to Rp 10.5 trillion. This count obtained from the main plus points four times the sanctions that have not dibayar.Apabila Minister of Finance with Article 44B, of the consideration for the interests of the state. However, the Act does not provide an explanation or the parameters regarding the interests of national revenue

Tax dodge is not always associated with a tax crime. WP can be justified to pay a small tax throughout the recording and reporting in accordance with the Act. But, if a small tax payments due to incorrect records, the investigation can be done.

Seeing the disturbing sense of justice in the case above, in the view of some legal experts, criminal sanctions to change the administrative sanctions can touch the sense of justice in society. But, some other legal experts looked at each other, just by changing the way of applying the law refers to the applicable law, will give the desired sense of justice.

The purpose of law is not solely for legal certainty, but also to fulfill a sense of justice. Therefore, natural that have investigated WP should not be delegated to the courts but were given remission from the tax would pay off debt and sanction

In other words, the purpose of the establishment of the Act (including Act KUP) not to memida-na WP, but satisfy a sense of justice. Understanding sense of fairness in the tax law would be understood in the context of understanding the interests of the country, especially about taxes.

That is, to investigate the tax dodger remains a goal for the interests of the state revenue to meet the sense of justice for those who do not pay taxes. Pay off the tax debt plus penalties must be severe enough punishment and justice to the interests of the state tax issue is a crime not only because payers do not convey the SPT is not true. Someone who did not register with the tax payers could be categorized to a tax penalty.