The reason, besides the defendant this case shredded Sea not as responsible or the person who has the authority to tax is also not yet discovered the value of losses to the state in this case.
"Tax Disputes should be resolved in the administrative realm, the tax court. How is the money that should tax payments be resolved or obtained by the state, if brought to public trial," said Chairul in his statement, in Jakarta, Friday (10/14/2011).
Previously presented as an expert witness in court dispute over taxes in the District Court of Central Jakarta, Thursday, October 13, Chairul explained if the tax law administration emphasizes obedience instead of using the criminal prosecution.
"Regulation in the field of safety devices that require the administration of administrative norms adhered to. Safety is the criminal. So that in law
priority is the completion of tax administration. This is in contrast with the principle of the criminal in the Criminal Code and Terrorism Act, "he explained.
According to him, a criminal offense is an offense meteriil tax case, which for the loss does not happen then there is no criminal. As with the offense of corruption that goes formal offense despite the losses the state has returned the remains criminal in it.
"Judging from the means and connected with the criminal act, show that these substantive offenses. There must be a loss to the state, will be met," said Huda, saying in a tax dispute when the administrative norms have been fulfilled then no longer need the criminal law.
"It must be decided first by the court of taxation," said Chairul.
Meanwhile, according to the defendant's attorney, Djafar Assegaf, when referring to the testimony of expert witnesses, authentic Asian Agri case was settled prior to the administrative court.
"Disputes tax or in terms of pre yudicial geschill expert witness, must first be decided by an administrative court. What if the party could not accept the decision, it is still possible for even the cassation appeal," said Assegaf separately.
"The witness also confirmed when the indictment raises doubts (in dubio pro REO) then the judge must make the most profitable decision for the defendant. In this case the judge should have rejected the indictment," he concluded.
Just to note, that the defendant Asian Agri tax manager, shredded Sea snared with article 39 paragraph 1 letter c of Act No.16 of 2000 on Taxation.
He is accused of the SPT is not correct or incomplete for fiscal years 2002 to 2005, causing state loss of Rp1, 259 trillion. He was threatened with jail sentences of up to six years in prison and a fine of four times the value of losses suffered by the state
0 comments:
Post a Comment