Improving Efficiency in Indonesia's Tax Objection Process: Reducing Bureaucracy and Enhancing Access to the Tax Court

Marmiyati Marmiyati, Uddiyana Khoe Keng Hien, Harjanto Slamet JM, Pho Seng Ka, Ponco Prasetyo, Anto Kustanto

Abstract


This paper discusses the inefficiencies in Indonesia's tax objection process, specifically regarding the Objection Letter (Surat Ketetapan Pajak) issued by the Directorate General of Taxes. Taxpayers can file objections if they disagree with the tax determination, as guaranteed by Indonesian tax laws, particularly Law No. 6 of 1983, amended by Law No. 6 of 2023. The process is classified as “quasi-judicial” because the entity adjudicating the objections is part of the same institution involved in the dispute. This often places taxpayers at a disadvantage, with the outcome typically unsatisfactory for them. The law allows the Directorate General of Taxes up to 12 months to issue an objection decision, leading to a total of 21 months from the start of the tax audit to the final decision. Taxpayers can appeal the decision to the Tax Court. The paper concludes that the tax objection process is inefficient in terms of time, effort, and cost. It recommends simplifying the procedure by allowing direct filing of objections after the tax audit, followed by the issuance of the tax determination. This would enable taxpayers to appeal directly to the Tax Court, reducing bureaucratic delays and achieving greater efficiency in terms of time and resources.


Keywords


Quasi-Judicial; Tax Objection; Bureaucracy Reduction; Tax Court Appeal

Full Text:

PDF

References


Journals:

Aji, W. K., Khosafiah, R. K., Jusikusuma, T. D., & Irawan, F. (2022). Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak Atas Gugatan Dan Sanggahan: Suatu Perspektif Keadilan. Jurnal Pajak Indonesia (Indonesian Tax Review), 6(1), 80-88.

Anggraeni, R. D. (2023). Position of the Tax Court Under the State Administrative Court. Journal of Legal Research, 5(1), 33-54.

Ardin, G. (2023). Improving Effectiveness And Efficiency Of Tax Objection Process: Lesson Learned From Japan. Indonesian Treasury Review: Jurnal Perbendaharaan, Keuangan Negara dan Kebijakan Publik, 8(1), 1-15.

Cords, D. (2012). Tax Court Appointments and Reappointments Improving the Process. University of Richmond Law Review, 46(2), 501-541.

Dewi, D. A. S. (2010). Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak. Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Magelang, 5(2), 23266.

Djafar, A. N. M. (2024). Penegakan Hukum Bidang Perpajakan Dan Penerapannya Dalam Bidang Usaha. Jurnal Dialektika Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 6(1), 54-65.

Fadhlia, A. R. (2025). The Role Of The Tax Court In Resolving Tax Disputes: An Analysis Of The Effectiveness And Transparency Of The Legal Process. Fox Justi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 15(02), 263-274.

Fitrah, F. A., Takariawan, A., & Muttaqin, Z. (2021). The Position of Civil Servant Investigator of Directorate General of Tax (DGT) in the Frame of Taxation Criminal Law Enforcement in Indonesia. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 3(1), 1-25.

Gillis, M. (1989). Comprehensive tax reform: the Indonesian experience, 1981-1988. Tax reform in developing countries, 1, 79.

Hidayah, K. (2018). Mediation for Indonesian Tax Disputes: Is It a Potential Alternative Strategy for Resolving Indonesian Tax Disputes?. Indon. L. Rev., 8, 154.

Ispriyarso, B. (2018). Upaya Hukum Dalam Sengketa Pajak. Administrative Law and Governance Journal, 1(1), 9-14.

Jawahir, R. P., Haruni, C. W., & Esfandiari, F. (2021). Analysis On The Imposition Of Online Reklame Tax According To Law Number 28 Of 2009. Indonesian Journal of Law and Policy Studies, 2(1), 12-27.

Kovacevic, N. Z. (2024). Effectiveness of Tax Dispute Resolution Mechanisms-The Impact of the European Legal Framework on National Jurisdiction. Law, Identity & Values, 4, 271.

Mahfud, M. (2015). Aspek hukum negara dan administrasi negara kelembagaan pengadilan pajak. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 4(3), 351-360.

Purba, P. P. Q., & Simatupang, D. P. (2023). Upaya Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak PT Taspen (Persero) Kantor Cabang Utama Medan. Jurnal Ilmiah Penegakan Hukum, 10(1), 33-41.

Richards, N. U. (2017). An examination of tax dispute resolution mechanisms in Nigeria: A case for the adoption of alternative dispute resolution methods. UNIPORT Law Review, 1, 195.

Sa'adah, N. (2019). Mekanisme Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak dalam Sistem Peradilan di Indonesia. Administrative Law and Governance Journal, 2(1), 19-33.

Sa'adah, N., & Wibawa, K. C. S. (2023). Batasan Kewenangan Mengadili Sengketa Pajak Antara Pengadilan Pajak Dan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 52(1), 21-29.

Sugiono, T. V., & Supriyadi, S. (2021). Pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 10/Puu-Xviii/2020 Atas Mekanisme Pengusulan Ketua Dan Wakil Ketua Pengadilan Pajak. Jurnal Pajak Indonesia (Indonesian Tax Review), 5(2), 150-163.

Books:

Agustino, L. (2016). Dasar-Dasar Kebijakan Publik. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta.

HR, Ridwan. Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: PT. Rajagrafindo Persada, 2016.

Sastrohadikoesoemo, S. (2004). Beberapa Catatan Pajak-Pajak Di Indonesia. Jakarta: Toko Gunung Agung.

Soemitro, R. (1976). Masalah Peradilan Administrasi Dalam Hukum Pajak di Indonesia. Bandung: PT. Eresco.

Soemitro, R., & Sugiharti, D. K. (2010). Asas dan Dasar Perpajakan. Bandung: PT Refika Aditama.

Sutedi, A. (2022). Hukum pajak. Sinar Grafika.

Sutrisno, D. (2016) Hakikat Sengketa Pajak. Jakarta: Penerbit Kencana.

Regulation:

Law Number 6 of 1983 Concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (KUP) as Amended Several Times, Lastly by Law Number 6 of 2023 Concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulations Concerning Job Creation to Become Law

Law Number 14 of 2002 Concerning Tax Court.

Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia Number 184/PMK.03/2015 Dated September 30, 2015 Concerning Tax Audit Procedures.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/ldj.7.1.97-109

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Law Development Journal has been indexed in: