Legal Certainty Analysis in The Enforcement of Tax Crimes in Indonesia Reviewed From Regulatory and Implementation Aspects

Aris Pujo Kristanto; Sujono Sujono

doi:10.63922/ijevss.v5i04.6390

Aris Pujo Kristanto Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma
Sujono Sujono Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63922/ijevss.v5i04.6390

Keywords: legal certainty, tax crime

Abstract

Because taxation constitutes the principal source of state revenue, guaranteeing legal certainty when tax offenses are prosecuted becomes an essential precondition for a sound fiscal order. This article examines that legal certainty in Indonesia through two lenses, namely regulation and implementation. Methodologically it rests on normative legal research reinforced by a limited empirical dimension, drawing together statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. On the regulatory side, the findings suggest that the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (KUP Law), as revised by Law Number 7 of 2021, already supplies a reasonably comprehensive normative structure; even so, a number of provisions, Articles 38, 39, and 39A in particular, remain open to divergent readings, while the reasoning judges rely on when imposing custodial sentences and fines are not yet uniform across rulings. On the implementation side, the overlap between administrative and criminal law breeds difficulty in operating the ultimum remedy principle, and enforcement remains largely repressive without being matched by adequate preventive efforts. On this basis the study proposes harmonizing the criminal provisions of the KUP Law, reinforcing sentencing guidance for the judiciary, and forming an enforcement model that balances prevention and prosecution, so that legal certainty, justice, and lasting taxpayer compliance may be achieved.

Keywords: legal certainty; tax crime; law enforcement; regulation; implementation

References

Alfarizi, M., & Rahman, T. (2023). Prinsip ultimum remedium dalam penegakan hukum pidana perpajakan pascaharmonisasi UU KUP. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 53(2), 210–228.
Arief, B. N. (2012). Bunga rampai kebijakan hukum pidana. Kencana.
Ashshofa, B. (2013). Metode penelitian hukum. Rineka Cipta.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2019). Pengantar ilmu hukum tata negara. Rajawali Pers.
Atmasasmita, R. (2012). Teori hukum integratif. Genta Publishing.
Bird, R. M., & Zolt, E. M. (2018). Tax policy in emerging countries. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 36(4), 732–756.
Darussalam, & Septriadi, D. (2010). Konsep dan aplikasi perpajakan internasional. DDTC.
Fauzi, A. (2022). Kebijakan hukum pidana dalam tindak pidana perpajakan. Jurnal Ius Constituendum, 7(2), 80–100.
Gunadi. (2021). Hukum pajak. Gramedia.
Hidayat, A. (2021). Kepastian hukum dalam penegakan hukum pajak di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Perpajakan, 5(2), 45–60.
Kementerian Keuangan Republik Indonesia. (2023). Laporan kinerja Kementerian Keuangan tahun 2023. Kemenkeu RI.
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP).
Kurniawan, D. (2021). Analisis penegakan hukum terhadap tindak pidana pajak. Jurnal Supremasi Hukum, 17(1), 40–55.
Kusumawati, R. (2024). Koordinasi antarlembaga dalam penegakan hukum pidana pajak di era keterbukaan informasi keuangan. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 12(1), 55–72.
Mardiasmo. (2019). Perpajakan. Andi.
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum. Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Moleong, L. J. (2018). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif. Remaja Rosdakarya.
Muladi, & Arief, B. N. (2010). Teori-teori dan kebijakan pidana. Alumni.
Nugroho, A. (2022). Implementasi penegakan tindak pidana perpajakan. Jurnal Rechtsvinding, 10(1), 22–38.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Addressing the tax challenges of the digital economy. OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Tax administration 2022: Comparative information on OECD and other advanced and emerging economies. OECD Publishing.
Peraturan Menteri Keuangan Republik Indonesia Nomor PMK-239/PMK.03/2014 tentang Tata Cara Pemeriksaan Bukti Permulaan Tindak Pidana di Bidang Perpajakan.
Prasetyo, T. (2020). Prinsip kepastian hukum dalam sistem perpajakan nasional. Jurnal Yudisial, 13(3), 80–95.
Pratama, Y. (2023). Konflik norma lex specialis dalam tindak pidana ekonomi: Kajian atas UU KUP, UU TPPU, dan UU Tipikor. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 8(1), 33–50.
Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1609 K/Pid.Sus/2018.
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor 1201/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Jkt.Sel.
Radbruch, G. (1946). Statutory lawlessness and supra-statutory law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 1–11.
Rahmawati, D. (2023). Hubungan regulasi dan implementasi dalam sistem perpajakan. Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi, 9(1), 10–25.
Sari, M. (2021). Pendekatan penal dalam penegakan hukum pajak. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 18(2), 55–70.
Soekanto, S. (2016). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penegakan hukum. RajaGrafindo Persada.
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2015). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. RajaGrafindo Persada.
Sujono, & Sudiro. (2023). Metodologi penelitian hukum. Cendekra.
Susanto, B. (2024). Self assessment system dan tantangan kepastian hukum pidana pajak di Indonesia. Jurnal Pajak Indonesia, 8(1), 15–29.
Sutedi, A. (2011). Hukum pajak. Sinar Grafika.
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
UU No. 6 Tahun 1983 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan, sebagaimana telah diubah terakhir dengan UU No. 7 Tahun 2021 tentang Harmonisasi Peraturan Perpajakan.
UU No. 7 Tahun 2021 tentang Harmonisasi Peraturan Perpajakan.
UU No. 8 Tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang.
UU No. 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi sebagaimana diubah dengan UU No. 20 Tahun 2001.
Waluyo. (2017). Perpajakan Indonesia. Salemba Empat.
World Bank. (2020). Doing business 2020: Comparing business regulation in 190 economies. World Bank.
Zain, M. (2018). Manajemen perpajakan. Salemba Empat.