BERITA TERKINI
IN the classic criminal law adage, there is a term Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. It means that a physical act alone is not sufficient to convict someone — there must be a 'guilty mind' accompanying it. This principle serves as a reminder that the law must not merely judge surface-level consequences, but is obligated to delve into the inner motives of the perpetrator.
This legal spirit was absorbed into our regulations through the General Tax Provisions Law (UU KUP), which clearly distinguishes between the offense of 'Negligence' (Article 38) and 'Intentional Act' (Article 39). The rules are clear, but their application is complex.
For decades, tax authorities have faced the same difficulty: how to determine the precise boundary between mere 'carelessness' and a genuinely 'malicious intent'?
A dilemma then emerges. On one hand, taxpayers are anxious that a clerical error might be treated as a serious crime. On the other hand, tax officers struggle to prove malicious intent amid the darkness of limited information.
However, as we approach the Coretax era, this paradigm is bound to shift. The question is: how can technology redefine the concept of bona fides (good faith) in tax compliance?
The Self-Assessment system is essentially a mandate of trust, empowering taxpayers to manage their tax obligations independently. However, this freedom creates a risk gap. The absence of comprehensive comparative data in the past can create grey areas.
Take revenue discrepancies as an example — is it purely a human error or a well-orchestrated tax avoidance maneuver? Without precise data instruments, the evidentiary process — from audits to disputes in the objection and appeal stages — becomes a time-consuming and costly undertaking (high cost of compliance).
Coretax arrives to answer that uncertainty. With the power of integrated data and its pre-populated features, the system offers more than mere administrative efficiency. It carries a far more fundamental mission: a transformation in the way the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP) enforces justice.
In theory, this technology narrows the room for 'negligence'. When financial transaction data, withholding tax slips, and other third-party data are automatically presented within a taxpayer's account, the excuses of 'forgetting' or 'not knowing' become irrelevant. The pre-populated feature acts as a safety guardrail, preventing taxpayers from slipping into administrative errors.
In a legal context, the implications are significant. When a taxpayer dares to manipulate or nullify already-valid system data without a strong basis, the mens rea alarm rings loud and clear. Conversely, the willingness to confirm that data is the most honest reflection of a taxpayer's bona fides.
The Coretax era demands that we redefine what it means to be compliant. Good faith has undergone a metamorphosis. It is no longer merely an abstract ethical mantra, but is now synonymous with objective and measurable transparency.
For taxpayers who act in good faith, this system is a guarantee of certainty. The potential for future disputes can be suppressed as early as possible through data reconciliation at the outset. The specter of lengthy audits need no longer be feared, as risk profiles are now built on a foundation of objective data, rather than subjective assumptions groping in the dark.
Conversely, for those few who harbor mens rea to erode the tax base, this technology will function as a firm instrument of strict law enforcement. In this way, the principle of justice — where the compliant are served and the dishonest are monitored — can stand proportionally.
Ultimately, technology is merely a tool. The soul of the tax system remains the trust between the state and its citizens. The implementation of Coretax is hoped to serve as a bridge that brings together taxpayer compliance and systemic justice.
Let us welcome this new era of taxation with bona fides. For in a transparent ecosystem, honesty is the best form of tax planning. (sap)
