Taxes SMEs, Simple But Not Fair

Even though it is not explicitly stated in Regulation 46 of 2013, difficult to deny that the target taxation in new tax regulations are Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

This is evident from Rp4.8 billion limit circulation of business in this regulation that is still within the scope of definition of SMEs in accordance with Act No. 20 Year 2008 on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, the work done individual or business entity with a maximum circulation of 50 billion a year.

Imposition of Final Income Tax Aspects of MSMEs Putting KeadilanUMKM Targets Latest PemajakanKetentuan income tax on SMEs (Part I)
Associated with SMEs, previously existing tax provisions governing the special rate of income tax for SMEs but apply only to the form of business. In Act 36 of 2008 (Income Tax Law) Article 31 E stated that the corporate taxpayer in the country with a gross income of up to Rp50 billion gain facility in the form of tariff reduction of 50 per cent of the general rate as stipulated in article 17 paragraph (2) Income Tax Act imposed on taxable income from the gross income of up to Rp4.8 billion.

With the corporate income tax rate that applies today is 25 percent, then the corporate taxpayer in the country who qualify, the effective rate to 12.5 percent on income up to Rp.4,8 billion. Imposition of Income Tax in this case made against taxable income is calculated from the profit-and-loss accounting (bookkeeping) after fiscal correction, because it is based on Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law No. 28 of 2007 (Act CTP), corporate taxpayer required bookkeeping.

Plans to make MSMEs as a focus or target of taxation has been sounded since the middle of 2011. At that time the source of the data shows that SMEs account for 61 percent of GDP but its contribution to total tax revenue is only 5 percent. Therefore it is strongly suspected that the issuance of PP 46 in 2013 is due to potential tax revenue from untapped SME sector to the fullest.

This is slightly different from the explanation of the Minister of Finance recently cited some national dailies and electronic media as saying that the decision of the Government of charge for 1 percent of the SMEs was not the reason state revenues, but intends to improve the status of SMEs into the formal sector so it is easier to obtain access to finance, capital or bank credit. Explanation of the Minister of Finance is questionable because the intention is not reflected in the preamble (consideration) the issuance of PP 46 in 2013.

Imposition of MSMEs Putting Final Income Tax Aspects of Justice

Consideration of the Government for the imposition of income tax at the rate of 1 per cent of the circulation of business every month and final of MSMEs as stated in the explanation of the general PP 46 in 2013 is simplicity in tax collection, reduced administrative burden for both the taxpayer and the Directorate General of Taxation, and with regard to economic development and monetary. There is no justice aspects that factor into consideration of the issuance of this regulation. Imposition of final income tax means that after payment of 1 percent income tax is calculated on the gross income each month, the tax liability on such income has been considered complete and final.

Judging from the concept of fairness in taxation (equity principle), the imposition of final income is not in accordance with justice because it does not reflect the ability to pay (ability to pay). Fair taxation is that the greater the greater the income tax to be paid. It’s called the justice vertical or vertical equity (Musgrave & Musgrave, 1976).

Income is meant here is the net income, ie after deducting expenses from gross income deduction allowed by tax regulations (Mansury R, ​​1996). Since the final income is calculated directly from the taxation of gross income is not in accordance with the concept of fairness in taxation. Why not, the size of the net income of a person or business entity will not affect the amount of tax to be paid because the tax is calculated by multiplying the rate directly against gross income. Even at a loss too, with the imposition of final income person or business entity must pay taxes.

Wearing a final income tax rates by 1 per cent, SMEs in the form of business entity disadvantaged and not disadvantaged when the percentage of taxable income to gross income may reach 8 percent. It can be formulated by 1 percent a month gross income x 12.5 per cent = x x 8 per cent of gross income a month. Rates of 12.5 per cent is the rate of Article 31 E of the Income Tax Law.

If SMEs in the form of business entity is able to achieve a percentage of taxable income above 8 percent, the SMEs in the form of business entity will be benefited by paying less income tax than the previous one. And vice versa will pay higher income tax when the percentage of taxable income of less than 8 percent of the gross income, will still pay income tax even though the Final loss condition. The minimum percentage on taxable income that must be achieved by SMEs individual is greater than 8 percent that are not harmed by the application imposition of final income 1 percent of gross income, since the entry into force of Regulation 46 Year 2013 exemption (taxable income) will no longer be a factor a deduction in calculating the income tax liabilities of SMEs private person.

But the modest retreat from the Self-Assessment System

Application of final income 1 percent of the SMEs that have a gross income of no more than 4.8 billion a year is appropriate if only in terms of ease of calculation of taxes for the individuals and entities that have been difficult to keep books.

But for MSMEs individual or business entity that has been organized with the orderly bookkeeping and calculating the income tax on the taxable income of the actual results of bookkeeping after fiscal correction, this provision became a setback for them. Why not, for this group, the concept of self – assessment that gives credence to the taxpayer to calculate, taking into account, deposit and report tax obligations clear itself becomes meaningless. Final Income Tax imposition of policies towards SMEs backward and not in harmony with the main purpose of the system is self – ie compliance assessment to pay taxes voluntarily (voluntary compliance).

Spirit of the government in pursuing the more dominant state revenue target seen in the issuance of PP 46 2013. So, more than just provide convenience to SMEs in calculating, depositing, and reporting of income tax payable, and not too obvious in order to encourage SMEs easy access to the financial sector, capital and bank loans.
Selective in Final Income Tax Application

In terms of taxation, imposition of income tax on gross income at a certain rate is known as one method of application of the presumption presumptive taxation or tax (Victor Thuronyi, 2003). In this case the tax authorities (tax authorities) assume that taxpayers earn a certain percentage of net minimum that is required to pay taxes.

Besides Indonesia, other countries also implement presumptive tax to a particular taxpayer groups which generally are those who allegedly are not willing to voluntarily register for a TIN and those who have registered but did not report the actual income (Terkper, 2003).

The individual entrepreneur, farmer groups and professional workers who conduct transactions with cash were also targeted application of presumptive tax. This group is known as the group hard to tax or a so-called hard to tax group. Even the small and medium entrepreneurs are also included in the group (Tanzi and Casanegra, 1989).

On the other side of the presumptive tax is considered to have some advantages, especially its effectiveness in reducing the administrative burden of the taxpayer and tax administration (tax authorities) for tax calculation is very simple, equitable distribution of the tax burden and can eliminate tax evasion and smuggling (Victor Thuronyi, 2003).

However, the aspect of justice is a major criticism of the application of the concept of taxation is final. Therefore, the application of presumptive tax should be done by the government selectively and carefully. For example for a group of SMEs private person or business entity that has been able to keep books in an orderly manner should not be included within the scope of the provisions of Regulation 46 in 2013.

By entering this group in the provisions of Regulation 46 in 2013, a boost that the taxpayer keep books as part of the self-assessment system to be reduced, in case one of the tasks of coaching taxpayer tax authorities is included in the compliance organization of bookkeeping.

Final determination of income tax rates also syogianya done really consider the level of average profit per sector in SMEs, so as not to cause wide difference between the SMEs who are disadvantaged and who benefit from the entry into force of Regulation 46 Year 2013. It is true that this provision can not benefit all side. A wise man said No one size fits all.

Ruston Tambunan, Ak., M.Sc., M.Int

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.