Snapshot of Taxpayers‘ Economic: The Need for a Single Revenue Profile

THE transmission and processing of information is at the core of taxation. A simple yet profound quotation from Joel Slemrod — a prominent economist in the field of taxation from the United States (US).

This statement demonstrates that the success of the tax authority in collecting revenues is not solely determined by the application of rates and penalties, but also by the capacity to manage and integrate information on taxpayers' economic activities in a comprehensive manner.

This view is reinforced by the empirical studies of Kleven et al. (2011; 2016), which state that the more complete the information held by tax authorities, the higher the level of taxpayer compliance.

In Indonesia, the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) continues to transform itself to capture the economic activities of taxpayers. Through the implementation of the coretax system, the DGT has introduced one of its flagship features, namely taxpayer account management (TAM), which adopts the concept of a 360 Degree Taxpayer View.

On account of the 360 Degree Taxpayer View concept, the TAM feature will depict taxpayers comprehensively through their identity, transactions and fulfilment of tax rights and obligations within a single integrated platform (DGT, 2024).

Moreover, the DGT has also developed sector-based compliance risk management (CRM) to identify compliance risks across several strategic sectors, including mining, palm oil, automotive and excise.

Over time, the identification of compliance risks has been extended to the fisheries, territorial and treaty shopping sectors (DGT, 2025). Nevertheless, this transformation still faces challenges in building a complete economic picture of taxpayers.

Challenges in Integrating Taxpayer Information

Several factors render data management difficult. One of these is that business entities may simultaneously hold different statuses, as a taxpayer under the DGT, a customs and excise service user under the Directorate General of Customs and Excise (DGCE) and a non-tax state revenue (NTSR) payer under various ministries/institutions.

In addition, compliance risk identification remains fragmented according to the information and needs of each agency. For example, the DGCE maintains a Single Database Profile, whereas the National Single Window Agency (NSWA) operates the Indonesia Single Risk Management system (DGCE, 2026; NSWA, 2022).

As a result, information on economic activities is stored across various data silos with risk profiling that has not been fully interconnected. This complexity is compounded by the fact that optimal CRM development is highly dependent on the availability of extensive and integrated data.

The need for information from within the Ministry of Finance (MoF), other ministries and agencies and various international information exchange schemes such as the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEoI) and Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) is becoming increasingly important.

As a point of reference, out of a total of 697 cooperation agreements for the exchange of data between the MoF and other parties, 463 are cooperation agreements involving the DGT (BaTii, 2026).

On the other hand, the coretax system is still in the post-implementation consolidation phase. The government is still prioritising system improvements before expanding interoperability with both internal and external MoF systems.

Consequently, Indonesia still faces challenges in establishing a single source of truth capable of depicting the full economic footprint of taxpayers. The fragmentation of business entity statuses, risk profiling, information and systems ultimately limits the ability of the tax authority to conduct information matching and comprehensive risk analysis.

This condition also reduces the effectiveness of detecting underreporting, underinvoicing, transfer mispricing and other forms of tax avoidance (Aslett et al., 2024; Slemrod, 2019). As a consequence, the potential tax revenue has yet to be fully realised.

President Prabowo Subianto has disclosed that Indonesia is estimated to have lost IDR16,220 trillion in revenues over the past three decades due to underinvoicing practices in the natural resources sector (CNN Indonesia, 2026).

This fact indicates that the primary challenge lies not only in the availability of information, but also in the capacity to integrate information and systems to view taxpayers' economic activities in their entirety.

Best et al. (2022) affirm that the loss of potential tax revenue is often caused not by a lack of information, but by the inability to connect information that is already available.

To this end, the transformation of tax administration must go further through the development of a single revenue profile, namely an integrated economic profile that consolidates all information on an entity, whether as a taxpayer, a customs and excise service user or an NTSR payer.

Single Revenue Profile

This concept is already embedded in MoF Reg. 70/2025 concerning the MoF Strategic Plan 2025–2029, which underscores the importance of integrating state revenue data. This is also consistent with the integrated taxpayer information practices that have been developed in various countries (OECD, 2024; Aslett et al., 2024).

Nevertheless, there are several strategies that the government may consider in implementing the single revenue profile. First, integrating tax data with internal and external MoF data into the MoF's One Data Ecosystem, whilst simultaneously integrating the risk profiling that has been developed to build the MoF Compliance Risk Management (KCRM) system.

A similar approach has been adopted by the Australian Taxation Office through cross-agency and third-party data matching to build comprehensive taxpayer profiles and strengthen risk-based oversight.

Second, accelerating the interoperability of the coretax system with other strategic systems, thereby, the chain of taxpayers' economic activities can be traced end-to-end. For example, integrating Coretax with SIMBARA and Minerba One Data Indonesia (MODI) in the mining sector as well as with the CEISA, the Indonesia National Single Window (INSW) and SIMIRAH in the palm oil sector.

Indonesia can draw lessons from Estonia, which has successfully built whole-of-government interoperability through X-Road, a national exchange of data layer that enables various government agencies to exchange data securely, in a standardised manner and in real time (e-Estonia, 2026).

Third, developing the KCRM into an intelligent compliance management system supported by artificial intelligence, machine learning, advanced analytics as well as prescriptive and predictive modelling to detect non-compliance risks at an early stage.

The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Japan have already leveraged data integration and analytics to strengthen risk targeting, provide early warnings and promote voluntary compliance before enforcement measures are undertaken.

Fourth, strengthening sectoral business intelligence through value chain mapping in priority sectors, such as coal, palm oil and oil and gas, which have complex business processes, involve numerous entrepreneurs, span multiple ministries and agencies and generate various types of state revenue.

This complexity implies that potential data discrepancies and revenue leakages may occur at every link in the business chain. To that end, value chain mapping is needed to chart the economic relationships between actors, identify compliance risk points and produce more targeted oversight and policy recommendations (Porter, 1985; OECD, 2025).

Ultimately, it is not easy for the state to tax economic activities that cannot yet be viewed in their entirety. The single revenue profile is designed to consolidate various sources of information into a more complete economic portrait of the taxpayer, supported by an intelligent analytical system and robust system interoperability.

Going forward, the success of this approach will depend on the government's ability to transform data into information capable of enhancing compliance and optimising state revenues. (rig)

* This opinion article represents the personal views of the author and does not reflect the position of the agency in which the author is employed.