AYER. Vol. 27 No.

2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

Reconstruction of the Ultimum Remedium AYER

Principle of Administrative Penal Law in Building Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/a
a Sociological-Opposed Tax Investigation in rticle/view/120

Indonesia How to Cite:

Henry Dianto Pardamean Sinaga, &
Anis Wahyu Hermawan. (2020).
Reconstruction Of The Ultimum
Henry Dianto Pardamean Sinaga1, Anis Wahyu Hermawan2
Remedium Principle Of Administrative
Staff of the Directorate General of Taxes and Student of the
1
Penal Law In Building A Sociological-
Opposed Tax Investigation In
Law Doctoral Program at Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia. A Y E R Journal, 27(2), 50 -
Indonesia 71.
Editorial: Revista de la Asociación de
Email: sinagahenrydp@gmail.com
Historia Contemporánea (AHC),
2
Staff of the Directorate General of Taxes and Student of the coeditada por la AHC y Marcial Pons-
Universitas Terbuka, Jakarta, Indonesia Ediciones de Historia.

Email: aniswahyu524@gmail.com ISSN: 1134-2277 | ISSN Electrónico:

2255-5838

Abstract
 Informes de citas de revistas de ISI.
Factor de Impacto: 0.318, Q3
Several tax crime case studies, several thoughts that criticize  SCImago (Scopus-Elsevier). Factor
de impacto SJR: 0.17, Q2
the domination of legal positivism in Indonesia, and the
 MIAR. Factor de Impacto: 10,9
dualism of tax avoidance and tax evasion show the
inconsistency in the application of criminal acts in the ==Open Access=
taxation sector as an ultimum remedium (last resort). Based
on the doctrinal method which is not only concerned with
the enforceability and non-validity of positive laws but also
refers to the strength of certain values and teachings, as these values and teachings are in line with
the theory of responsive regulation which is supported by the theory of responsive law, hence two
main conclusions were drawn. First, the ultimum remedium in the criminalization process of
taxation crimes in Indonesia is still limited as a "legal process", preliminary evidence which by
default always refers to Article 43A of KUP Law, not as a "social process", so it has the potential to
marginalize justice, the right to life, the right to repair self, the right to actively participate, and the
right to participate in recovering and overcoming the loss of tax revenue suffered by the state,
which is the goal of the ultimum remedium for taxpayers. Second, the legal reconstruction of the
ultimum remedium of administrative penal law for taxpayers can only be achieved through

50
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

understanding as fellow legal subjects, not based on that taxpayers are legal objects, whose
priority is attached to the non-projustitia process and substantive justice for taxpayers which is
alleged to have harmed state revenue from the tax sector. In order to produce a sociological tax
investigation in Indonesia, it is necessary to simplify the tax criminal offence, simplify the tax crime
investigation procedure, and strengthen administrative law, which is the essence of the ultimum
remedium.

Keywords: Tax Investigation, Ultimum Remedium, Law Enforcement, Sociology, Administrative

Penal Law.

A. INTRODUCTION

Tax law which is part of the State Administrative Law shows that the terms in taxation cannot be
separated from other legal terms such as civil law and criminal law, as in the event that subjective
and objective requirements are fulfilled as a taxpayer, an understanding is needed regarding the
need for assurance and certainty law in fulfilling tax rights and obligations through the application
of administrative sanctions (in the form of interest and/or fines) and criminal sanctions (Kansil &
Kansil, 2007; Sinaga, 2017; Soemitro, 1992.). This is in line with the affirmation of Brotodihardjo
(2010) which states that tax law, or what is also known as fiscal law, contains elements of state
administrative law and criminal law with its criminal procedure, has the duty to examine the
conditions in society in connection with the imposition of tax, then formulate it in legal regulations,
and then interpret the legal regulations.

More specifically about fiscal crime, Moeljatno (2008) emphasizes that fiscal criminal law has a
different system from the Criminal Code (KUHP), including: "(a) the fiscal criminal system existed
before the Criminal Code existed. This is stipulated in Article 4 Invoicingverordening v.h. Wetboek
w. Strafrecht who stated that at the time the Criminal Code came into effect, fiscal penalties before
the Criminal Code were still used; (b) In the case of the execution of a criminal fine, fiscal law is
carried out in the same manner as civil law which applies the payment of damages determined by
the judge to the loser in the case, which, if the convicted person is unable to pay, the punished
goods can be taken and sold concerned who is declared executable to pay the fine”. This is
different from the Criminal Code system which states that if a fine is not paid, it must be replaced
by substitute imprisonment (Article 2 of the Criminal Code). So it can be emphasized that in
protecting the existing role of public administration, tax law is part of criminal law, as James

51
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

Goldschmidt first introduced the term administrative penal law in Germany as quasi-criminal law,
which allows state administrative bodies to impose sanctions that are, or at least , is similar to
punishment, and has subsequently developed with many terms, such as secondary criminal law,
administrative criminal law, economic offense law, fiscal (or income) offense law, labor law,
environmental punishment law or financial penalty law, which essentially asserts that Administrative
criminal law as part of criminal law serves to protect the role of public administration, because it
consists of criminal provisions contained in (administrative) regulations other than criminal law
(Byung-Sun, 1993).

However, the existence of legal guarantees and certainty in fulfilling tax rights and obligations has
been misinterpreted by certain taxpayers and certain tax officials considering the existence of
several tax crime cases, several thoughts that criticize the domination of legal positivism in
Indonesia, and the dualism of tax avoidance and tax evasion which has shown (potential)
inconsistencies in the application of criminal acts in the field of taxation as a final effort ( ultimum
remedium) in administrative penal law. This raises two problem formulations that must be
answered through reconstruction efforts (law), as Black's Law Dictionary (2009) defines
reconstruction as "the act or process of rebuilding, re-creating, or reorganizing something (an
expert in accident reconstruction)", and Sinaga & Sinaga (2018) suggest reconstruction in the field
of taxation as an action or process in order to rebuild, re-create, or reorganize existing regulations
to make them more ideal to be used as a solution that prioritizes outputs and outcomes in their
efforts tackling tax avoidance and tax evasion. This article will answer two questions, first, how is
the construction of the ultimum remedium of administrative penal law in investigating criminal
offenses in the field of taxation in Indonesia today? Second, how is the reconstruction of the
ultimum remedium of administrative penal law in investigating criminal acts in the field of taxation
in Indonesia in the future?

B. LITERATURE REVIEW

The emergence of tax crime in a country cannot be separated from the existence of
symptoms or conditions in society that are related to legal duties, because basically, taxes
are a symptom of society (Soemitro, 1992). These symptoms or conditions will give rise to
rules, which can be in the form of imperatives (orders and prohibitions) and in the form of
dispositions (open opportunities, allow) or are called objective law, and thereafter these ru les
will form subjective law, which manifests itself as rights. Rights and obligations that live in a

52
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

particular society (Huijbers, 1995). Then, objective law and subjective law can cause risks and
obstacles when implemented in tax law duties, so that understanding tax as a symptom or a
certain social condition in the form of tax law duties and the elements of administrative law
and criminal law inherent in it still requires knowledge of philosophical aspects and
sociological aspects, as Cicero has put forward " ubi societas ibi ius " (where there is a society
there is the law) and Aristoles has reminded that humans are zoon politicon , which means
that humans will achieve happiness if they live together in a country based on virtue policies
(written & unwritten rules) along with the virtue of morality and justice (Russell, 2004).

One of the philosophical aspects referred to is the increasingly incessant criticism of the
domination of legal positivism in Indonesia which can lead to dualism, anomaly, and
ambiguity between the abstract ideal-prevailing and integrated things in the legal system of
a country with concrete things in various elements of society, especially in mobilizing justice,
legal certainty, and public benefits. These criticisms, among others, hav e been put forward by
Huijbers (1995) who has argued that although there are always community efforts to raise
justice, it still often happens that legal certainty embodied in a law is still considered not
developing a common interest even though no matter how good the formation of an order
existing law, taking into account the characteristics of each (as laws are always abstract, while
the cases that arise are always concrete), then Hermawan & Sinaga (2020), which proposes
that in dealing with tax issues, the public benefit is in the form of preference. that prioritizes
the interests of the nation, state, and society can be used to guide the character of a
regulation from the uncertainty attributed to justice and to save a regulation from having to
justify the injustices that have occurred (Mill, 1957), and further Wignjosoebroto (2002),
emphasizing that legism or positivism ideologies too much about the principle of legal
certainty, and its influence in the life of the state has conceptualized the law of no rms of
justice ( ius ) into statutory norms ( lege ) for the purpose of realizing a more ideal, structured
state that is centrally integrated and authoritative, even though The law is always active,
open, and responsive to changes in society, so it must be realized that in terms of making
existing regulations, other factors are needed to determine a fair norm for living together.

The sociological aspects of a tax crime cannot be separated from the emergence of certain
symptoms or conditions in society in the form of unpopular taxes which will create risks and
obstacles in the form of resistance, which generally begins with passive resistance, and then
continues with active resistance. The emergence of passive resistance, among others, is due

53
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

to inadequate understanding of tax law because it is difficult to understand, the level of

awareness and awareness of taxes that still needs to be improved, supervision of tax
collection has not been effective, and monitoring of the use of tax collection results has not
been effective. While the emergence of active resistance, among others, is due to
actions/efforts to reduce/ease tax payments by not violating the applicable tax penalties (tax
avoidance), and because of actions/efforts to reduce/ease tax payments by violating the law
through tax evasion (Obuyamin, 2014).

Understanding these philosophical and sociological aspects, it can be said, has brought the
direction of law enforcement in the field of taxation in Indonesia to reach two areas that
should be harmonized, namely law enforcement with sociological issues and law enforcement
with juridical aspects. For supporters of law enforcement with a sociological orientation that
focuses on society and society, the hope of ensuring legal certainty and justice in society is
sought through an out-of-court settlement or non-projustitia law enforcement, because what
constitutes a legal objective will only be achieved if supported by legal duties, in the form of
harmonization between legal certainty and legal equivalence in produc ing justice, and the
role of the law, which depends on the attitudes of the role model (enforcers) of the law and
public acceptance regulated by the law (Soekanto, 2010). This thinking continues to develop
through the support of several legal figures in Indonesia, such as Rahardjo (2009) who
proposes that one of the adjustments that can be implemented in law enforcement is
through the optics of legal sociology in the form of the concept of legal settlement outside
the court, which means not only in court as long as during This is always wanted by those
who think formally-logistically, Prasetianingsih (2011) who emphasizes that law enforcement
should not only talk to the projustitia process as a last resort after enforcement of various
regulations in other fields of law is carried out, but it is appropriate to ensure legal certainty
and justice. carried out through non- projustitia law enforcement, and Soekanto (2010) who
concluded that the main problem of law enforcement lies in the factors that may influence it,
which include the legal factors themselves, law enforcement factors, facilities or facilities that
support law enforcement, law enforcement factors tor society, and cultural factors.
Furthermore, supporters of juridical law enforcement, such as Austin and Kelsen, clearly state
that the only law that is accepted in law enforcement is the legal system, which can be
ascertained in fact and its validity because the law gets its positive form from the competent
authority (Huijbers, 1982). In fact, Hans Kelsen through his pure legal theory firmly stated that
law needs to be investigated precisely as law, that is, apart from views of law which actually

54
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

has nothing to do with the meaning of the law as law such as psychological, sociologi cal,
ethical, and legal aspects politics (Huijbers, 1982). This means that law enforcement with a
juridical perspective does not question whether a law is fair or unfair because its relevance is
only in the legal validity of the law.

Even though there are two ideas of law enforcement in Indonesia as the area covers two
areas that are not the same, but they have similarities that lie in their implementation for a
state that requires law as a compulsion to enforce its provisions, which does require power
that comes from the formal authority for its implementation. However, the limits of this
power must be determined by law because law without power is wishful thinking while power
without the law is wrong (Kusumaatmadja & Sidharta, 2009). In this case, power remains a
necessary element in a legal society, in the sense of a society that is governed by and based
on law, so that it can be said analytically that power is a function of an ordered society,
where not only every law enforcement action carried out by the state. it must be based on
the prevailing laws and regulations, but it is also hoped that there will always be a public
response to integrity and openness to maintain institutional integrity when there is the
enactment of autonomous law and repressive law in tax criminal investi gations which have
actually caused tax law to isolate itself, narrowing the responsibility. he answered, and
accepted blind formalism (Kusumaatmadja & Sidharta, 2009; Rahardjo, 2006; Nonet &
Selznick, 2007). It cannot be denied that so far the tax authorit ies have strongly supported
formalism because it is considered to have process efficiency, consistency of results, and is
impartial, but the tendency of formalism must define in advance which problems require
which response and write rules to mandate those responses in stark contrast to responsive
regulation. and to responsive law, for example, every taxpayer who has fulfilled a criminal
offense in the field of taxation must be prosecuted in court (Braithwaite, 2007). Meanwhile,
responsive regulation strongly emphasizes the no to the jail option against actors who
respond to their mistakes and wish to make amends for the damage they have done to
society, and responsive law which clearly teaches that: a) law must be more than just formal
justice, that is, it must be competent in form of participation through enhanced access
through the integration of legal and social advocacy so that they are able to recognize the
public's desires and are committed to achieving substantive justice; b) legal institutions must
be more dynamic for social structuring and social change, so that in their reconstruction the
basic themes of activism, openness, and cognitive competence combine (Braithwaite, 2007;
Nonet & Selznick, 2007).

55
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

More specifically about responsive regulation, Ayres & Braithwaite (1992), summarizes it as
requiring regulators to be responsive to the behaviour they want to regulate in deciding
whether a more or less interventionist response is required based on two components of the
optimal structuring of responsive regulation, namely: (1) choosing the appropriate form of
delegation, and (2) choosing the right kind of escalating (non -delegated) regulation.
Furthermore, Braithwaite (2007) describes five critical elements of responsive regulation to its
implementation that refers to the practice of “(a) influencing the flow of events (b) through
systematic, fairly directed and fully explained disapproval (c) that is respectful of regulates,
helpful in filling information gaps and attentive to opposing or resisting argum ents, (d) yet
firm in administering sanctions (e) that will escalate in intensity in response to the absence of
genuine effort on the part of the regulate to meet the required standards ".

C. METHOD

This qualitative research uses a doctrinal method by tryin g to collect and then analyze
several primary sources, such as tax law case studies along with relevant legislation, and
secondary sources, such as journal articles or other written comments about a case of law
and legislation. Of course, the identification of relevant legislation, case studies, and
secondary materials in this research are in line with the adequate review of the social science
literature in examining the law as a pattern for behavio ur, where the study of doctrinal law in
this research is not only concerned with issues of the enactment and non-enforcement of
positive law only but also refers to the characteristic of thinking a priori, namely relying on
the strength of values and teachings (Dobinson & Johns, 2007; Wignjosoebroto, 2002;
Samekto, 2015).

As the scope of this study is a tax crime where the authority to carry out the investigation is
carried out by law enforcers at the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) related to all acts
related to central taxes for which the violation or crime is punishable by criminal sanctions.
What is meant by the central tax is a tax collected by the central government which is
managed by the DGT, which is related to Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning General
Provisions and Tax Procedures as amended several times, most recently by Law Number 16 of
2009 concerning Stipulation. Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 5 of 2008
concerning the Fourth Amendment to Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning General Provisions
and Procedures for Taxation into Law (KUP Law), Law Number 7 of 1983 concerning Income

56
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

Tax as amended several times, most recently by Law Number 36 of the Year 2008 (Income
Tax Law), RI Law Number 8 the Year 1983 concerning Value Added Tax and Sales Tax on
Luxury Goods as amended several times, most recently by Law Number 42 the Year 2009
(PPN/PPnBM Law), Law Number 12 the Year 1985 regarding Land Tax and Buildings as
amended by Law Number 12 the Year 1994 (PBB Law) where the PBB includes tax objects the
plantation sector, forestry sector, mining sector, and other sectors (other than the tax objects
of the plantation sector, forestry sector, and mining sector which are not in the district/city)
as stipulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 139/PMK.03/2014 July 10, 2014, concerning the Classification and Determination of
the Selling Value of Tax Objects as the Basis for Imposing Land and Building Tax. Law
Number 21 of 1997 concerning Fees for Acquisition of Rights to Land and or Buildings as
amended by Law Number 20 of 2000 (BPHTB Law), Law Number 19 of 1997 concerning Tax
Collection by Force Letter as amended by Law Number 19 of 2000 (PPSP Law), and Law
Number 13 of 1985 concerning Stamp Duty (BM Law).

Concern for a tax crime, among others, can be seen from several cases that have been
handled by the tax authorities, namely the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) based on the
reports for the last three years, namely 39 files, 25 files, and 57 files respectively. -Each has
been convicted in 2016, 2017, and 2018, causing a loss in state revenue and a fine of Rp. 780
billion and Rp. 1,560.8 billion in 2016 (DGT, 2016), amounting to Rp. 1,341.5 billion and Rp.
2,106.6 billion in 2017 (DGT, 2017), and Rp. 1,727 billion and Rp. 3.511 billion in 2018 (DGT,
2018). Although several cases of tax crime have been convicted, it turns out that some of the
convictions are deemed not fulfilling a sense of justice for certain parties, both the defendant
or the public prosecutor, such as decisions regarding differences in calcula ting losses on
state revenue and decisions regarding differences in understanding of the tax legal position
as administrative penal law. Indeed, in terms of calculating losses to state revenues,
especially in tax crimes, there are often differences in the number of losses in state revenues
between investigations that have been P-21 and judicial decisions. This cannot be separated
from the existence of a suspect/defendant's right to propose a Witness / Expert who can
alleviate it, and/or the dualism of arrangements between administrative losses and losses (on
income) of the state, and/or ambiguity of internal rules in taxation, external rules that are the
same hierarchical. in the order of laws and regulations (Sinaga, 2018). Some examples of
decisions that reflect differences in the calculation of losses in state revenue include:

57
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

1. Decision of Pontianak District Court (PN) No. 87/Pid.Sus/2016/PNPtk dated 19 April

2016 which was strengthened by the appeal decision of the Pontianak High Court (PT)
No. 55 / PID.SUS / 2016 / PT PTK dated 9 June 2016 and the Supreme Court (MA)
cassation decision No. 1806 K / PID.SUS / 2016 dated 23 November 2016 which
stipulates imprisonment and a fine of Rp. 377.41 million, - whereas the public
prosecutor filed a claim for a loss in state revenue of Rp. 4.21 billion.
2. Supreme Court decision no. 1933 K / PID.SUS / 2015 dated 22 March 2016 which: 1)
stated that the Defendant was legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a
tax crime and sentenced him to imprisonment for 1 (one) year and a fine of 2 (two)
times the amount of restitution petitioned for Rp.3.03 billion, and 2) cancel the
decision of the Surabaya District Court Number 2487/Pid.B/2014/PN.Sby dated
February 11, 2015, which sentenced the Defendant to be legally and co nvincingly not
proven guilty of committing a tax crime.
3. Supreme Court decision no. 55 K / PID.SUS / 2014 dated 16 June 2014 which imposed
the tax crime against the defendant with the total loss on state income of Rp. 4.73
billion. At the same time canceling the decision of the Surakarta District Court
Number: 12/Pid.Sus/2013/PN.Ska dated June 10, 2013 which has released the
defendant.

Then, the Supreme Court decision No. 1014K/PID.SUS/2016, the decision of the Palembang
District Court No. 394/Pid.sus/2015/PNPlg, and the Supreme Court decision No.
2583K/PID.SUS/2016 is one of the tax crime case studies on the existence of dualism,
anomaly, and ambiguity between abstract -ideal things and concrete things, especially in
mobilizing justice, legal certainty, and public benefit, which occurs in an integrated criminal
justice system in Indonesia. Supreme Court decision No. 1014K/PID.SUS/2016 and the
decision of the Palembang District Court No. 394/Pid.sus/2015/PNPlg strictly implements
legal certainty in the context of tax law as penal administrative law, so that the process of
investigating criminal offenses in the taxation sector is carried out as a final effort ( ultimum
remedium ). In this case, legal certainty is not only seen from the existence of offenses, and
legal certainty is not only limited to spelling out the law, and it appears that the meaning of
justice is different among the parties concerned. Indeed, the Supreme Court (MA) cassation
decision No. 1014K/PID.SUS/2016 and the Palembang District Court decision No.
394/Pid.sus/2015/PNPlg will appear unfair and do not consider the public benefit for the
state as a victim, but for taxpayers who are suspected of committing tax crimes, the decision

58
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

is deemed to have fulfilled a sense of justice. On the other ha nd, the Supreme Court decision
No. 1014K/PID.SUS/2016 and the decision of the Palembang District Court No.
394/Pid.sus/2015/PNPlg which implemented tax law as penal administrative law, turned out
to be contradictory to the Supreme Court decision No. 2583K/PID.SUS/2016 which contains a
strong meaning of tax law as penal administrative law. Supreme Court decision No.
2583K/PID.SUS/2016 imprisonment and a fine of Rp. 41.15 billion to the Defendant who was
the director of the company because he deliberately used a tax invoice that was not based
on the actual transaction for the VAT SPT January 2007 to September 2009, resulting in a
principal loss of Rp.15.13 billion. In the Supreme Court decision No. 2583K/PID.SUS/2016, it is
known that the Defendant had good intentions in repaying the state loss amounting to Rp.
8.27 billion while preliminary evidence checks are being carried out. Then, there were the
opinions of two experts who gave an opinion that made light on the defendant. Lawyers for
the State Budget and Public Finance, among others, explain that the spirit of the state
financial regime (including taxes) is administrative settlement because the state prioritizes
state revenue (statement), and Criminal Experts who explain that at the administrative stage
of settlement, there is an installment process, which is good faith and therefore there is no
intention to commit tax offenses, and there are excuses.

Further, on the principle of the ultimum remedium of the administrative penal law, it contains
elements of the objective so that the imposition of criminal sanctions can be given to the
right person because the perpetrator of a criminal act also has human rights including the
right to obtain justice, the right to life, and the right to self -improvement (Sari, 2017). The
regulation of this principle explicitly in Indonesia can be seen from several applicable laws
and several decisions of the Constitutional Court (MK). For example, in the explanation of
Law no. 32/2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Managem ent (Environmental Law)
states that the ultimum remedium is the last resort after the implementation of administrative
law enforcement is deemed unsuccessful, however, Sukanda Husin's opinion in the
Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XII/2014 states that the ultimum remedium
principle in the Environmental Law is a limited ultimum remedium principle because it only
applies to certain formal crimes, such as violations of wastewater quality standards,
emissions, and disturbances. Then, an explanation of the ultimum remedium of taxation
crimes is contained in the explanation of Article 13A KUP Law and the explanation of Article
29 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation Number 74 of 2011 concerning Procedures for
Implementing Rights and Fulfillment of Taxat ion Obligations which states that the imposition

59
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

of criminal sanctions is the last resort to increasing taxpayer compliance, however for
taxpayers who violate the tax penal provisions for the first time as referred to in Article 38
are not subject to criminal sanctions but are subject to administrative sanctions in the form
of an increase of 200% of the amount of underpaid tax.

D. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

1. Construction of Ultimum Remedium of Administrative Penal Law in Taxation Crime

Investigation in Indonesia

KUP Law and Government Regulation Number 74 of 2011 have stipulated that one form of tax
enforcement in Indonesia is the investigation of criminal offenses in the field of taxation which is "a
series of actions taken by investigators to seek and collect evidence which with this evidence makes
clear criminal acts in the field the taxation and find the suspect”. The investigation of Indonesian tax
crimes in the system is different from the general criminal provisions regulated in the Criminal
Code. This has clearly been anticipated by the Indonesian criminal law wherein Article 6 paragraph
(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) states that criminal investigators apart from police
officers are also certain civil servants who are given special authority by law. laws, including the
Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS) of the DGT as specifically stipulated in Article 44 of the KUP Law.
The provisions for tax penalties in the form of negligence, deliberate, probation, and repetition are
formulated in the KUP Law, PBB Law, BM Law, and PPSP Law with the provision that the expiration
for the prosecution of tax crimes is 10 years after the end of the tax period, part of the tax year or
tax year, as regulated in Article 40 of KUP Law. A brief description of the formulation of tax
penalties in the taxation legislation is described in Chart 1 below:

60
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

Chart 1 Formulation of Criminal Offenses in the Field of Taxation in Indonesia

The investigation of a tax crime is the final effort in the operation of the law enforcement system in
the DGT where every tax crime investigation is carried out in the event that sufficient preliminary
evidence is found which fulfills at least the facts that describe the alleged articles being violated,
the modus operandi, tempus, and locus. Delicti, the alleged perpetrator of the violation, at least 2
(two) potential witnesses, evidence, and the alleged amount of loss to state revenue in the tax
sector, as formulated in Article 30 paragraph (1) letter an of Regulation of the Minister of Finance
(PMK) No. 239/PMK.03/2014 dated 22 December 2014 concerning Procedures for Preliminary
Evidence Audit of Taxation and Form 79 Circular of the Director-General of Taxes Number SE-
23/PJ/2015 dated 25 March 2015 concerning Technical Guidelines for Preliminary Evidence
Examination of Criminal Acts in the Taxation Sector. Preliminary Evidence Examination, which is
carried out based on information, data, reports, and complaints, as formulated in Article 43A
paragraph (1) of KUP Law, is a condition, act, and/or evidence in the form of information, writing, or
objects that can provide an indication of the existence of There is a strong suspicion that a criminal
act in the field of taxation is currently or has been committed by anyone which may cause losses to
state revenues (Article 1 point 26 of the KUP Law) Furthermore, a brief description of the
relationship between tax audit and tax collection and tax investigation through preliminary
evidence examination is described in Chart 2 below:

61
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

Chart 2 Investigation of Tax Crime in Indonesia

As the investigation of tax crimes is a concrete form of law enforcement in the tax community
which will certainly affect legal justice and benefit to society, it is sufficient if the implementation
must be preceded by preliminary evidence examination. However, the existence of Article 43A of
the KUP Law as the only highest legal basis in the implementation of the preliminary evidence
examination has not reflected fairness for taxpayers, especially in terms of inconsistencies
regarding which violations are subject to tax administration actions or tax criminal acts. This has
also been illustrated by Sinaga regarding the unequal treatment for the same legal action related
to the tax offense for not submitting the SPT. One example is the application of tax administration
sanctions against a taxpayer who does not submit an annual corporate income tax return and does
not submit books on the grounds that the document is lost/burned, even the taxpayer is still filing
an appeal at the Tax Court, where the decision of the Tax Court is the number PUT 56245 / PP /
M.XIVA / 15/2014 dated 17 October 2014 has rejected the appeal petition of the Appellant
(Taxpayer) on positive corrections to business circulation, negative corrections on the cost of goods
sold (HPP), and positive corrections to deducting gross income. Even though Article 28 paragraph
(1) of the KUP Law has emphasized that Corporate Taxpayers in Indonesia are required to keep
books, and Article 38 of the KUP Law (in case of negligent acts) or Article 39 paragraph (1) letter c
and or letter d of the KUP Law (in the case of deliberate actions) has formulated the imposition of
criminal sanctions against any person who does not submit an SPT or submits an SPT but the
contents are incorrect or incomplete, as one example of law enforcement is the Pontianak PN
Decision Number 87/Pid.Sus/2016/PNPtk dated 19 April 2016, PT Pontianak's decision No.
55/PID.SUS/2016/PTPTK dated 9 June 2016, and the Supreme Court decision no. 1806 K / PID.SUS /

62
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

2016 dated 23 November 2016 who decided on imprisonment and fines for not submitting the
Annual Income Tax Return of Individual Taxpayers and Periodic VAT SPT (Sinaga, 2018). One of the
facts that present unequal treatment clearly transcends the meaning (political) equality as "the
sharing of governmental decisions in such a way that, in the setting of governmental policies, the
preference of each citizen is assigned an equal value", which has a clear lead. on the application of
equality before the law (Gardner, 2009).

Apart from the dualism regarding which violations are subject to tax administration action or
taxation crime in terms of preliminary evidence examination, there is an ambiguity between the
expiration of the tax audit and the expiration of tax prosecution, in which case the two common
threads of tax enforcement must be carried out through preliminary evidence examination.
Considering that the preliminary evidence examination is part of the tax audit (or in other words, it
is confirmed that the preliminary evidence examination is not part of the investigation of tax crime),
while any investigation of criminal offenses in the field of taxation must go through preliminary
evidence examinations, the tax authorities should follow the expired terminology. the tax audit that
has been arranged when performing the preliminary evidence audit. This means that every
preliminary evidence examination that is carried out must be completed without a period of 5 (five)
years after the time the tax becomes due or the end of the tax period, part of the tax year, or the
audited tax year, so that if an SKP is issued (in the event that it is not criminal act taxation) does not
become expired, and if the preliminary evidence examination is upgraded to a tax crime
investigation, a formal provision that the expiration of the tax audit (including preliminary evidence)
is not exceeded. It is recommended that within the framework of tax law reform that meets tax
fairness in terms of appropriateness to act or decency not to do so, the tax audit expiration period
is renewed to be 10 (ten) years after the time the tax becomes due or the end of the tax period,
part of the tax year or year audited tax return.

2. Reconstruction of the Ultimum Remedium of Administrative Penal Law in Investigation of Tax

Crime in Indonesia

Tax is a social symptom, so as a transformational agent, it is appropriate to continue to promote

sustainability and social justice for taxpayers. This is emphasized by Bauman and May (2019) which
state that every shift in the actions of the actors can be carried out through understanding which is
the core of every human life, then sociological thinking will improve and help actors to continue to

63
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

be relevant and responsive in closing existing differences because there is no endpoint of absolute
truth in all fields of science.

Inculcating a very adequate understanding certainly greatly determines the quality of institutions as
transformational agents in determining the implementation of good tax enforcement, which is
inseparable from the reform process, accountability, and sustainable proactive response from
society, as Bruno (2019) has emphasized that a country the tendency of tax institutions to carry out
the reform process properly will ensure that tax enforcement can reduce the occurrence of
distributional injustice, and Iyoha, Olujobi & Oyewunmi (2017) suggest that the government gain
legitimacy on the legal platform (not just the regulatory platform) and the people's mandate (which
in it there are taxpayers), it is necessary to encourage accountability and proactive response from
the community. Thus, the sociological optics of tax should be the guidance in implementing
responsive tax investigation in Indonesia, where the reconstruction of the rules must shift from
traditional law enforcement which is oriented towards punishment and deterrence towards
engagement of the compromise strategy, with its priority on non-projustitia processes which must
pay attention to ultimum remedium principle. The compromise strategy that is identical to the
compliance strategy is an expansion of the discourse towards prevention whose central point lies in
educational and advisory programs, including self-regulation and positive incentive schemes,
selective surveillance, an alert system of offenders, and the exercise of discretion, whose objectives
are is to increase the awareness and compliance of taxpayers with applicable tax laws and
regulations, to make taxpayers aware of the importance of compliance, and to impart the know-
how which enables the taxpayers to comply (Jones, 1998).

One form of law enforcement realization in the field of taxation, the compromise or compliance
strategy, can be seen in law enforcement that has long been implemented by the Australian Tax
Office (ATO) through its Responsive Regulation Model which combines the “deterrence” and
“accommodative” models in the form of a pyramid of 3 (three) sides, namely the regulatory
strategies side, the enforcement strategies side (Murphy, 2004), and the motivational postures side,
each of which has 4 (four) hierarchies (Braithwaite, 2007). The four hierarchies are referred to from
the lowest order to the top pyramid based on the typology of taxpayers so that willing to do the
right thing is described briefly in table 1 below:

64
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

Table 1 Relation of Compliance Level in Law Enforcement Practices

Taxpayers’ Types Enforcement Strategies Regulatory Motivational

(OECD, 2009) Strategies Postures

Obey Education/record Self -Regulation Commitment

keeping/service
delivery
Trying to be obedient but Real time business Enforced Self- Capitulation

not always successful examinations/record Regulation

keeping reviews
Do not want to obey but Audit with/without Command Resistance

will obey if the tax penalty Regulation

authorities pay attention (Discretionary)

Not obedient at all Prosecution Command Engagement

Regulation (Non-
Discretionary)

The description of the relationship between the level of compliance in law enforcement practices
confirms that the investigation of criminal offenses in the field of taxation must remain an ultimum
remedium for taxpayers who do not comply at all. In addition, the maximum remediation of tax
crimes is a positive consequence of philosophical, social, and legal relationships in bridging the
regulatory vacuum (Zelentsov et al., 2017). The definition of tax crime in the prevailing tax law in
Indonesia, as the bridge currently exists between the Elucidation of Article 33 paragraph (3) of Law
Number 25 of 2007 concerning Investment which formulates tax crime as "false information
regarding reports related to tax collection by submitting a notification letter, but whose content is
incorrect or incomplete or attaching incorrect information so that it can cause losses to the state
and other crimes regulated in the law regulating taxation "and Article 1 number (1) of the KUP Law
which formulating taxes as "compulsory contributions to the state that are owned by private
persons or entities that are compelling under the law, without receiving direct compensation and
used for state needs for the greatest welfare of the people". This shows that the contribution of
every individual or entity in the form of taxes to the state never gets directly rewarded so that
every taxpayer must obtain justice, the right to life, the right to self-improvement, and the right to
participate as much as possible to overcome and recover losses in state revenue when in the

65
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

implementation of taxation rights and obligations there is untruth, ambiguity, and incompleteness
which can cause losses to state revenue from the tax sector.

In addition, the idea of ultimum remedium in implementing the compromise or compliance

strategy model must at least refer to principles, such as the penal value principle (i.e. behaviour
that is not significantly blamed should not be criminalized), the utility principle (i.e. criminalization
based on the weight of arguments concerning the need, control costs, and inefficiency) and the
humanity principle (namely the assessment of criminalization based on prospective proportionality,
the interests of victims, and certain controls) (Jareborg, 2004), then in tax crimes, it is necessary to
simplify the articles because His understanding refers to administrative law duties and the need for
legal certainty against the dualism between tax avoidance and tax evasion and the absence of loss
limits on state revenue which is the domain of tax crime investigation so far, such as:

1. Criminal offense for not registering to be given a taxpayer identification number (NPWP) or
failing to report his business to be confirmed as a taxable entrepreneur (PKP) so that it can
cause losses to state revenue, as formulated in Article 39 paragraph (1) letter (a) KUP Law, is
very contradictory to administrative law duties related to the provisions of NPWP
registration and PKP inauguration numbers in position as formulated in Article 2 paragraph
(1) and paragraph (2) of KUP Law so that registration subscribers should be included in the
realm of tax administration law (Suharsono & Sinaga, 2019).
2. Legal uncertainty over the application of criminal offenses for not submitting or submitting
SPT and/or information whose contents are incorrect or incomplete so that it may cause
losses to state revenues as formulated in Article 39 paragraph (1) letter (d) of KUP Law with
actions administrative in the form of tax audits in issuing Underpayment Tax Assessments
(SKPKB) as formulated in Article 13 of KUP Law or Additional Underpayment Tax
Assessments (SKPKBT) as formulated in Article 15 of KUP Law, even though there is an
editorial in Article 4 paragraph (1) of KUP Law which has confirmed that every Taxpayer is
obliged to fill and submit the SPT correctly, completely, clearly, and sign it and affirmation
that the Taxpayer with his own will can correct the SPT that has been submitted as
stipulated in Article 8 of KUP Law (Suharsono & Sinaga, 2019).
3. Offense of Article 43 paragraph (1) of KUP Law (which will impose penalties on
representatives, attorneys, employees of taxpayers, or other parties who order to commit,
participate in, encourage, or assist in committing criminal acts in the field of taxation) would
go against the vision (which wants to be the best state revenue-gathering institution) and

66
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

the DGT's first mission (to collect revenue based on high voluntary tax compliance and fair
law enforcement) if it ignores the principle of ultimum remedium, because of one of the
fundamental weaknesses law enforcement with juridical principles that never question fair
or unfair as long as it fulfills the lex scripta, lex stricta, and lex certa is that it can lead to
endless causality, considering that the occurrence of a tax crime lies in its collective action,
even though the DGT's main existence is as a compliance-based state revenue collection
institutions and high voluntary taxes and fair law enforcement (DGT, 2020; Sinaga,
Pramugar & Wirawan, 2020).

Furthermore, so that in the future, a taxpayer is deemed to meet the criteria of complete
disobedience, it is necessary to make maximum efforts that have been made by the tax
authorities in proving it, starting from the socialization of tax rules, raising awareness to comply
with each tax regulation by themselves. applies, still tries to make taxpayers aware who have not
complied through the socialization of the rules, making appeals and warnings, and continuing to
carry out supervision and tax audit actions against taxpayers who do not heed the appeal or
official warning from the tax office. By establishing a rigorous but straightforward framework for
thinking about the optimal extent and nature of interventions by a tax administration, which is
parallel and can be integrated with a strong framework, the ultimum remedium nature as an
objective can increase the voluntary compliance of taxpayers in Indonesia (Keen & Slemrod,
2017).

E. CONCLUSION

This doctrinal study produces two main conclusions. First, the legal construction of the ultimum
remedium of administrative penal law in the investigation of criminal offenses in the taxation sector
in Indonesia is only based on preliminary evidence examination, where the issuance of the
preliminary evidence examination itself, as formulated in Article 43A KUP Law, is based on
information, data, reports, and complaints. This in fact does not reflect the ultimum remedium and
at the same time does not reflect the sociological optics of tax law that is not separate from social
symptoms, so it is appropriate that every tax investigation act should be able to become a
transformational agent that reduces distributional justice and simultaneously promotes
sustainability and social justice for taxpayers in Indonesia.

67
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

Second, the legal reconstruction of the ultimum remedium of administrative penal law in
investigating tax crimes in Indonesia must be through strengthening understanding (such as
understanding the penal value principle, the utility principle, and the humanity principle in carrying
out criminalization) as the core of every human life, whose implementation. This can be realized in
the non-projustitia process and other dynamic efforts with the theme of active participation,
openness, and accountability of the actors involved in achieving substantive justice and in seeking
to recover or overcome losses to state revenues.

Based on these conclusions, it is hoped that the simplification of tax crime offenses and the
simplification of tax crime investigation procedures, such as eliminating the preliminary evidence
examination process because it is not in accordance with the spirit of ultimum remedium and
remembering that any information, data, reports, and complaints related to taxpayers are properly
strict administrative procedures, which must be preceded by a letter of clarification, then followed
by a statement letter from the taxpayer or an appeal letter for repair/correction of the SPT, warning
letters I and II, and certain minutes if there is no response or good faith from the taxpayer.

REFERENCES

1. Abuyamin, O. (2014). Pilar-Pilar Perpajakan. Bandung: Adoya Mitra Sejahtera.

2. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation
Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
3. Bauman, Z., & May, T. (2019). Thinking Sociologically. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
4. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation. New York: Oxford
University Press, Inc.
5. Braithwaite, V. (2007). Responsive Regulation and Taxation: Introduction. Law & Policy, 29(1),
3-10.
6. Brotodihardjo, S. (2010). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Pajak. Bandung: Refika Aditama.
7. Bruno, R. L. (2019). Tax enforcement, tax compliance and tax morale in transition economies:
A theoretical model. European Journal of Political Economy , 56, 193-211.
8. Byung-Sun, C. H. O. (1993). Administrative Penal Law and Its Theory in Korea and Japan from
a Comparative Point of View. Tilburg Law Review, 2(3), 261-277.
9. DGT. (2016). 2016 Annual Report. Jakarta: Directorate General of Taxes of the Ministry of
Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.

68
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

10. DGT. (2017). 2017 Annual Report. Jakarta: Directorate General of Taxes of the Ministry of
Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
11. DGT. (2018). 2018 Annual Report. Jakarta: Directorate General of Taxes of the Ministry of
Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
12. DGT. (2020). Visi dan Misi. Jakarta: Directorate General of Taxes.
13. Dobinson, I., & Johns, F. (2007). Qualitative Legal Research. In McConville, M., & Chui, W. H.
(2007). Research Methods for Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
14. Gardner, B. A. (2009), Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
15. Hermawan, A. W., & Sinaga, H. D. P. (2020). Public Benefit Principle in Regulating E-
Commerce Tax on Consumer’s Location in Indonesia. International Journal of Advanced
Science and Technology, 29(8), 1212-1222.
16. Huijbers, T. (1982). Filsafat Hukum dalam Lintasan Sejarah. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
17. Huijbers, T. (1995). Filsafat Hukum. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
18. Iyoha, O. F., Olujobi, J. O., & Oyewunmi, O. A. (2017). Application of the Laws of Defamation
and Sedition in Nigeria’s Jurisprudence: Still Relevant?. Journal of Advanced Research in Law
and Economics, 8(1 (23)), 59-68.
19. Jareborg, N. (2004). Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio). Ohio State Journal of
Criminal Law, 2(2), 521-534.
20. Kansil, C. S. T., & Kansil, C. S. (2007). Pengantar Hukum Indonesia. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
21. Keen, M., & Slemrod, J. (2017). Optimal tax administration. Journal of Public Economics, 152,
133-142.
22. Kusumaatmadja, M. & Sidharta, B. A. (2009). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum: Suatu Pengenalan
Pertama Ruang Lingkup Berlakunya Ilmu Hukum . Bandung: Alumni.
23. Mill, J. S. (1957). Utilitarianism. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
24. Moeljatno. (2008). Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
25. Murphy, K. (2004). Moving forward towards a more effective model of regulatory
enforcement in the Australian Taxation Office. British tax review, 6, 603-619.
26. Nonet, P., & Selznick, P. (2007). Hukum Responsif. Translated by R. Mutaqqien, Bandung:
Nusamedia.
27. OECD. (2009). Monitoring Taxpayers’ Compliance: A Practical Guide Based on Revenue Body
Experience. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/tax/administration/40947920.pdf.
28. Prasetianingsih, R. (2011). Negara Hukum Yang Berkeadilan: Kumpulan Tulisan Dalam Rangka
Purnabakti Prof. Dr. H. Bagir Manan, SH, M.CL. Bandung: Pusat Studi Kebijakan Negara
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjajaran.

69
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

29. Rahardjo, S. (2009). Penegakan Hukum: Suatu Tinjauan Sosiologis . Yogyakarta: Genta
Publishing.
30. Rahardjo, S. (2006). Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
31. Republic of Indonesia, The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
32. Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia Criminal Law Code.
33. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 42/2009, on Value Added Tax and Sales Tax on Luxury Goods.
34. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 16/2009 on General Provisions and Procedures for Taxation.
35. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 36/2008, on Income Tax.
36. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 12/1994, on Property Tax.
37. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 20/2007, on BPHTB Law.
38. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 19/2000, on PPSP Law.
39. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 13/1985, on BM Law.
40. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 25/207, on Investment Law.
41. Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 32/2009, on Environmental Law.
42. Republic of Indonesia, Regulation of Government No. 74/2011.
43. Republic of Indonesia, Regulation of Ministry of Finance No. 139/PMK.03/2014.
44. Republic of Indonesia, Regulation of Ministry of Finance No. 239/PMK.03/2014.
45. Republic of Indonesia, Circulation Letter of Director General of Taxes No. SE-23/PJ/2015.
46. Russell, B. (2004). Sejarah Filsafat Barat Kaitannya Dengan Kondisi Sosio-Politik Zaman Kuno
Hingga Sekarang. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
47. Samekto, A. (2015). Pergeseran Pemikiran Hukum dari Era Yunani Menuju Postmodernisme .
Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
48. Sari, N. (2017). Penerapan Asas Ultimum Remedium dalam Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana
Penyalahgunaan Narkotika. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 17(3), 351-363.
49. Seth Jones, D. (1998). Enforcement in Singapore: Using the Compliance Strategy. Asian
Journal of Public Administration, 20(1), 30-56.
50. Sinaga, H. D. P. (2017). The Criminal Liability of Corporate Taxpayer in the Perspective of Tax
Law Reform in Indonesia. Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 29(3),
542-557.
51. Sinaga, H. D. P. (2018). Loss (of Revenue) of State within Taxation Crimes in
Indonesia. Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 30(1), 153-167.
52. Sinaga, H. D. P., & Sinaga, B. R. P. (2018). Rekonstruksi Model-Model Pertanggungjawaban di
Bidang Perpajakan dan Kepabeanan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

70
AYER. Vol. 27 No. 2 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/120

53. Sinaga, H. D. P., Pramugar, R. N., & A. Wirawan, A. (2020). Reformulation of Conditio Sine
Qua Non in the Renewal of Mens Rea Corporate Corruption in Indonesia. International
Journal of Advanced Science and Technology , 29(8), 1241-1251.
54. Soekanto, S. (2010). Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: UI Press.
55. Soekanto, S. (2010). Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Penegakan Hukum. Jakarta:
RajaGrafindo Persada.
56. Soemitro, R. (1992). Pengantar Singkat Hukum Pajak. Bandung: Eresco.
57. Suharsono, A., & Sinaga, H. D. P. (2019). Rekonstruksi Ketentuan Pidana Perpajakan agar
Penegakan Hukum Pidana Perpajakan di Indonesia Efektif. Jakarta: Kajian Akademis
Direktorat Penegakan Hukum Direktorat Jenderal Pajak.
58. Wignjosoebroto, S. (2002). Hukum Paradigma, Metode & Dinamika Masalahnya. Jakarta:
Elsam & Huma.
59. Zelentsov, A. B., Dolinskaya, V. V., Frolova, Е. Е., Kucherenko, P. A., & Dudin, M. N. (2018).
Comparative analysis of regulatory instruments and the trend towards the harmonization of
proprietary regulation in the civil law of member states of BRICS. Journal of advanced
research in law and economics, 8(5), 1641-1649.

71