DPR: Taxpayers Still Can Request Cancellation of Incorrect Tax Assessments
The House of Representatives (DPR) has stated that taxpayers still have the opportunity to request the cancellation of incorrect tax assessment letters (SKP), even though an objection mechanism already exists within the tax system. The DPR considers this provision an additional administrative measure enacted by lawmakers to ensure fairness and legal certainty for taxpayers.
The DPR’s stance was presented during a judicial review hearing (Case No. 91/PUU-XXIV/2026) at the Constitutional Court (MK), which is examining Article 36(1)(b) and Article 36(2) of Law No. 28 of 2007 on General Provisions and Taxation Procedures (UU KUP).
The application was filed by PT Gan Wan Solo (GWS) through its legal representatives, Cuaca Teger, Timbul Siahaan, and Sangap Ritonga. During the hearing on 19 May 2026, DPR legal counsel I Wayan Sudirta presented four main conclusions.
First, Article 36(1)(b) of the UU KUP should be interpreted as a provision allowing for correction of tax assessment letters that do not comply with tax regulations.
‘This provision strengthens legal protection and certainty for taxpayers by empowering the Director General of Taxes to correct errors without always awaiting a ruling from the Tax Court,’ Wayan stated in an official release.
Second, the DPR believes Indonesia’s tax legal system provides taxpayers with various legal and administrative avenues to challenge tax assessment letters.
In this context, Article 36(1)(b) of the UU KUP serves as an additional mechanism outside the objection process available to taxpayers. Third, the DPR views Article 36(2) of the UU KUP as a standard regulatory delegation in legislation, particularly for technical administrative matters requiring operational adjustments.
The fourth conclusion states that Articles 36(1)(b) and 36(2) of the UU KUP do not contravene the 1945 Constitution and remain legally binding.
The judicial review application arose from the Directorate General of Taxes’ interpretation that taxpayers who have already filed objections to the substance of a tax assessment cannot subsequently request cancellation of an incorrect assessment based on formal grounds. The applicants argue this interpretation conflicts with the principles of justice and legal certainty under Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution.
The applicants’ legal counsel explained that the issue arose in several cases where taxpayers, having lost in objection and appeal processes, attempted to request SKP cancellation under Article 36(1)(b) of the UU KUP. However, the Directorate General of Taxes returned these requests without issuing a decision.
Before the MK, the DPR stated that Article 36(1) of the UU KUP provides an additional administrative remedy for taxpayers beyond the objection mechanism. The applicants argue that the DPR’s view contradicts the current practice of the Directorate General of Taxes.
The government, represented by Special Adviser to the Finance Minister Yon Arsal, contends that the mechanism under Article 36(1) of the UU KUP is only applicable to taxpayers who have not filed an objection.
According to the government, if procedural errors occur in issuing an SKP, the available legal recourse is a lawsuit to the Tax Court under Article 23(2)(d) of the UU KUP, which must be filed within 30 days of the SKP’s issuance. In response, the applicants’ counsel, Timbul Siahaan, argued that the government’s stance contradicts the legal principle of ubi jus ibi remedium, meaning every right must have a remedy.
‘Taxpayers cannot be forced to identify material errors in an SKP within three months of its issuance or procedural errors within 30 days,’ said Timbul.
He added that such restrictions could deprive taxpayers of their right to justice.
‘If taxpayers are forced in this manner, as stated by the staff expert, it amounts to a human rights violation. Under the ubi jus ibi remedium principle, taxpayers have the right to pursue administrative remedies at any time after discovering an SKP error,’ he said.