Taxpayer Proxy: When Professional Rights Meet Tax Competence

The issuance of Finance Minister Regulation No. 44 of 2026 concerning the Requirements to Become an Authorised Representative in Taxation and the Procedures for Exercising Rights and Fulfilling Obligations of Authorised Representatives in Taxation has generated discourse, particularly regarding the position of Advocates when acting as Taxpayer Authorised Representatives.

Some consider the provision to restrict Advocates. However, this issue should not be framed as a conflict between Advocates and Tax Consultants.

The more fundamental question is: does the right to practise a profession automatically confer competence to perform a specific function regulated by another legal regime?

The function of a Taxpayer Authorised Representative is multidisciplinary in nature. A representative may deal with bookkeeping, finance, fiscal reconciliation, VAT, audits, restitution, objections, transfer pricing, affiliated transactions, tax treaties, depreciation, amortisation, and tax administration. Therefore, what is tested is not the professional label, but the relevant competence for that function.

Article 32 of the General Tax Provisions Law grants taxpayers the right to appoint a representative through a Special Power of Attorney. Constitutional Court Decision No. 63/PUU-XV/2017 affirms the existence of representatives in taxation and that a person acting as a representative must understand taxation matters. The Court limited the authority of the Minister of Finance so that the regulation of the exercise of rights and obligations of representatives remains within the technical-administrative domain, rather than restricting or expanding citizens’ rights.

Accordingly, the Constitutional Court Decision does not grant Advocates an automatic right to become Taxpayer Authorised Representatives without tax competence. Following the amendments through the Harmonisation of Tax Regulations Law, tax competence has become increasingly important. The measure of legality of PMK 44/2026 is its conformity with statutory authority and its respect for taxpayer rights and professional rights.

PMK 44/2026 is a development from PMK 229/2014 and Government Regulation No. 50 of 2022. PP 50/2022 already recognised Tax Consultants, Other Parties, and Family members as representatives. PMK 44/2026 clarifies this. Taxpayers may appoint a Tax Consultant, an Other Party, or a Family member. An Other Party is a person other than a Tax Consultant or family member who obtains a Tax Authorisation Certificate (SKT).

PMK 44/2026 does not create a monopoly for Tax Consultants, but rather opens access for parties outside the profession provided they meet competency standards. Tax Consultants demonstrate competence through a Tax Consultant Licence, while Other Parties do so through an SKT. This approach constitutes competency-based authorisation: authority is determined by competence to perform the function of a Taxpayer Authorised Representative.

Advocates retain the right to practise their profession, including providing legal services in taxation matters. However, when performing the function of a Taxpayer Authorised Representative, the provisions on competence and tax law procedures apply.

A power of attorney derives its scope from the legal regime that constitutes the source of its authority. Therefore, an Advocate’s power of attorney in criminal procedure does not automatically confer authority as a Taxpayer Authorised Representative. The competency requirement also does not mean Advocates are prohibited from providing legal services in taxation matters.

PMK 44/2026 also establishes certainty regarding representation. A Special Power of Attorney is the source of authority, while electronic access is the means of its implementation. One Special Power of Attorney applies to one representative and one Exercise of Rights and/or Fulfilment of Specific Tax Obligations. This provision does not mean a taxpayer may only have one representative. Different representatives may be appointed for different scopes.

However, if a new representative is to be appointed for the same scope, the previous representative must first be revoked. This construction prevents conflicting representation and ensures a clear chain of authority: Taxpayer, Special Power of Attorney, Representative, then action on behalf of the Taxpayer. This matter relates to legal standing, attribution of authority, accountability, and legal certainty.

The prohibition on sub-delegation is also logical because the mandate is given to a specific person based on their competence and integrity. However, this prohibition must be distinguished from technical assistance. A representative may request an employee or another party to deliver or receive certain documents through a letter of appointment, provided they do not assume the formal position of representative. Delegation of authority differs from technical assistance.

The principle of one formal representative for one scope prevents conflicts of authority. However, problems arise when a representative is unavailable due to illness, accident, emergency, or force majeure. A replacement representative can only be appointed after the previous representative is revoked, even though the previous representative may already understand the transactions, documents, bookkeeping, corrections, arguments, and communications with the auditor. Such conditions may disrupt the continuity of assistance and harm the Taxpayer.

Therefore, the regulation should consider a temporary replacement mechanism in extraordinary circumstances, with time limits and scope. The principle of one formal representative is maintained, but the Taxpayer does not lose protection merely because their representative is unavailable.

The debate over PMK 44/2026 should not stop at the question of “are Advocates restricted?”, but rather “what competence is required when someone becomes a Taxpayer Authorised Representative?” The professional rights of Advocates must be respected, but professional rights are not identical to the authority to perform every function regulated by a particular legal regime. Conversely, tax competence must be maintained, but it must not be used to create a professional monopoly.

The measure of success of PMK 44/2026 is not how many professions can become representatives, but whether taxpayers obtain representatives who are competent, have integrity, are professional, have clear authority, understand business facts, and are able to protect their tax rights and interests.

Thus, the debate of “Advocates versus Tax Consultants” should not be the end goal. What must be built is a Taxpayer Authorised Representative system that is competency-based and open, has clear boundaries of authority, and provides legal certainty and protection for Taxpayers.

Professional rights and functional competence are two distinct legal matters. Professional rights must be respected, tax competence must be maintained, and between the two, the interests of the Taxpayer must serve as the point of balance.