Questioning Non-Recognition of Tax Education Post-MoF Reg. 55/202
RECOGNITION of tax education within the profession of taxpayer attorney is frequently contested. The argument put forward is that every individual must demonstrate their competence through a competency examination in order to be fair.
That argument at first glance sounds logical. This logic appears to be reflected in the post-MoF Reg. 44/2026 and MoF Reg. 55/2026 regime. The competency examination is positioned as the gateway to obtaining a certificate of competence (surat keterangan kompetensi/SKK in Indonesian), without distinction as to a person's educational background.
For tax consultants, a certificate of competence becomes one of the requirements for obtaining a tax consultant licence, in addition to other requirements, including passing the tax consultant professional examination. Meanwhile, for other parties, the certificate of registration (surat keterangan terdaftar/SKT in Indonesian) is issued simultaneously with the certificate of competence.
Under this construction, both for tax consultants and for other parties, recognition of competence alike begins from a single gateway, namely passing the competency examination to obtain a certificate of competence. This implies that those who have acquired competence through formal tax education as well as those from other educational backgrounds must ultimately pass through the same examination mechanism. There is no recognition for graduates of tax education.
In the previous Perspective entitled Disappearance of Tax Education Recognition Post-MoF Reg. 55/2026?, it was discussed how MoF Reg. 55/2026 places the competency examination as the sole pathway to obtaining a certificate of competence.
However, the issue does not stop at whether or not tax education is recognised. There is a more fundamental question, namely whether fairness truly requires every individual to demonstrate their competence in the same manner.
That question needs to be examined through the principle of equal treatment as elaborated in the book Kuasa dan Konsultan Pajak: Model dan Perbandingan (2024). Identical treatment does not necessarily produce equitable treatment when applied to parties who are from the outset in different circumstances.
Equal treatment is a principle widely employed across various fields, including taxation. In the context of taxpayer attorneys and tax consultants, the regulation of competence as an instrument for filtering those who may enter the profession ought to be built upon the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
In practice, equal treatment is often narrowed to mean the obligation to treat every individual identically in every circumstance. Under such an understanding, requiring all individuals to sit the same competency examination does indeed appear to be the fairest option.
Yet, equal treatment forms part of a broader conception of equality and justice (Kirby, 2018; Waldron, 2008). Equality may be classified into two types, namely formal equality and substantive equality.
Formal equality proceeds from identical treatment. Differences in the characteristics of each party are not used as grounds for differentiating treatment. Under this approach, a single examination mechanism applied to every individual may be regarded as a manifestation of equality.
Conversely, substantive equality takes into account relevant differences in the circumstances or characteristics of each party. This approach does not merely ask whether every individual is treated in the same way, but also whether they are genuinely in the same circumstances such that it is appropriate to treat them identically.
It is here that equal treatment acquires its fuller meaning. The principle may be understood as the absence of differential treatment in respect of situations or parties that are in similar circumstances (similarity).
For instance, two individuals with similar educational backgrounds and work experience ought naturally to receive the same treatment in a competency examination. Competence thus functions as an instrument for assessing a person's 'suitability' to practise as a taxpayer attorney and tax consultant objectively and impartially.
However, what if the circumstances of the two are not similar? This question becomes relevant when comparing someone who has acquired tax competence through formal education with someone who has not yet acquired that competence.
For example, one person has completed formal tax education covering specific subject matter, study loads, learning outcomes and evaluation processes. Meanwhile, another person comes from an educational background that does not provide basic tax competence.
Both must naturally satisfy the competency standards to enter the profession. The standard must be the same. However, does the principle of equal treatment also require both to demonstrate fulfilment of that standard through precisely the same mechanism?
It is here that the distinction between identical treatment and equitable treatment becomes important. Where initial circumstances differ, differential treatment may be justified provided it is based on relevant differences and has an objective justification.
In other words, 'everyone sits the same examination' may reflect formal equality, but does not of itself guarantee substantive equality.
Education Does Not Mean Without Examination
Graduates of tax education are frequently challenged with the following question. If graduates of tax education are not required to sit the same competency examination, does that not mean their competence has never been tested?
It must be understood that recognition of tax education does not imply that every person holding a qualification with a tax nomenclature is automatically deemed competent. Recognition should be accorded to tax education programmes that meet the prescribed competency standards.
This means the basis for recognition is not merely a qualification, but rather the competence that has been formed and assessed through the educational process. As also elaborated in the book Kuasa dan Konsultan Pajak: Model dan Perbandingan, assessment of tax education may take into account tax subjects studied, number of credits, duration of study, and the alignment of the curriculum with minimum competency standards.
Such a curriculum naturally needs to refer to the competency standards required in the profession. Accordingly, recognition of education does not mean the elimination of standardisation, but rather the positioning of education as one of the mechanisms for meeting and demonstrating those standards.
As a result, the dichotomy between 'examined' and 'not examined' becomes inappropriate. Formal education is itself a process of both forming and evaluating competence. Students complete subject matter, fulfil study loads, participate in various forms of assessment, and achieve particular learning outcomes before being declared graduates.
Graduates of tax education are not without examination. What differs is how, when, and through which institution their competence is formed and assessed. Accordingly, the more appropriate question is no longer, "Why do tax education graduates not sit the same examination?" but rather, "Has the required competence been acquired and demonstrated through a reliable mechanism?"
It is from this point that the concept of multiple competency recognition pathways gains its relevance. A competency framework may consist of several pathways. First, a priority pathway for graduates of higher education institutions in the field of tax competence who meet the requirements. Second, an equivalence pathway for those from other disciplines. Third, a recognition or accreditation pathway based on specific competence and experience.
The existence of a priority pathway does not imply that the taxpayer attorney and tax consultant profession is monopolised by tax education graduates. Taxation is a multidisciplinary field. Those with competence in aspects of taxation are also not homogeneous; thus, the taxpayer attorney and tax consultant profession must remain open to various academic backgrounds.
However, that openness does not mean that education specifically designed to build tax competence loses its relevance. Tax education should serve as the 'home' in meeting the basic competency requirements for the taxpayer attorney and tax consultant profession, without making it the sole port of entry.
Such an approach is not unfamiliar in the regulation of professions. A number of professions, such as advocates, medical practitioners, public accountants, engineers and architects, place the relevant educational background as part of the pathway into the profession.
This implies that a similar construction can be applied to the taxpayer attorney and tax consultant profession. For graduates of tax education programmes that satisfy the standards, certain basic tax competencies may be recognised as having been fulfilled through formal education. Meanwhile, those from other disciplines may still enter the profession through an equivalence pathway to fulfil the basic tax competencies they do not yet possess.
Accordingly, the equivalence pathway is not intended to restrict access for those from other disciplines. On the contrary, the mechanism preserves the openness of the profession whilst ensuring that all parties ultimately reach the prescribed competency standards.
Therefore, the existence of multiple pathways does not mean the competency standards differ. The final standard must be the same. It is the pathway for reaching and demonstrating that standard which may differ according to competencies already held.
Such an approach is consistent with the Indonesian National Qualifications Framework (Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia/KKNI) in Indonesian, which aligns, equates, and integrates education, training, and work experience within a scheme for recognising work competencies.
With that perspective, education, equivalence, experience and examination need not be treated as mutually exclusive mechanisms. All may form part of a single competency recognition system. A single competency standard does not of itself require a single means of achieving and demonstrating it.
Differences in pathways are primarily relevant at the point of entry into the profession. Once the competency standard has been met, the treatment must in fact be the same. The obligation to maintain and update competence through continuing professional development (pengembangan profesional berkelanjutan/PPL in Indonesian), for example, may be applied without distinction as to the pathway previously taken.
Standards-based recognition may also provide broader benefits for the tax education ecosystem. If only education programmes that meet certain competency standards receive recognition, higher education institutions have an incentive to continuously update their curricula, improve the quality of lecturers, strengthen assessments and ensure learning outcomes remain relevant to regulatory developments and the needs of practice.
Under such a construction, recognition may in fact serve as a quality assurance instrument, rather than an exception to the standard. Higher education institutions cannot merely offer programmes with a tax nomenclature, but must ensure their educational process genuinely produces the required competencies.
The relationship between education and the profession also becomes clearer. Without a recognition mechanism linked to professional standards, the educational process and the professional system may each operate in isolation. Competencies established and evaluated over many years through formal education do not receive clear consequences when a person enters the professional system.
For these reasons, recognition of tax education ought not to be narrowly characterised as serving the interests of higher education institutions or their graduates. The issue concerns how to build an interconnected ecosystem of education and the profession to sustainably produce competent tax human resources.
Recognition Is Not a Privilege
From that perspective, recognition of tax education should not be viewed as the conferral of a privilege upon a particular group. Recognition also does not imply that every graduate of tax education is automatically entitled to obtain a certificate of competence, a certificate of registration or to practise as a taxpayer attorney.
The government should first establish clear competency standards. The curriculum and learning outcomes of tax education programmes may subsequently be mapped against those standards. From that mapping, it can be determined which competencies have been fulfilled and, where a gap still exists, which competencies still need to be completed or examined.
That construction is what distinguishes recognition from privilege. Recognition does not eliminate the standard, but acknowledges that competence may be formed and demonstrated through different pathways provided the same standard is met.
Moreover, recognition of education has a foundation at the level of the law. The Elucidation of Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the General Tax Provisions and Procedures Law (GPTP Law) states that a person appointed as an attorney must possess certain competence in tax matters. Such competence may, inter alia, be acquired through a particular level of education, certification and/or guidance by an association or the Ministry of Finance (MoF).
That formulation is significant. The GPTP Law does not treat tax competence as though it can only be acquired through a single pathway. A particular level of education is expressly cited as one of the means of acquiring competence.
However, that space for recognition is no longer visible in the design of the current implementing regulations. MoF Reg. 44/2026 continues to require taxpayer attorneys to possess certain competence in tax matters. When the mechanism for recognising such competence is subsequently regulated through MoF Reg. 55/2026, the competency examination is positioned as the gateway to obtaining a certificate of competence, without providing a separate pathway for competence acquired through formal education.
Accordingly, at the level of the law, a particular level of education remains expressly cited as one of the means of acquiring competence. Yet at the level of implementing regulations, that differentiation of recognition pathways is no longer apparent.
Yet recognition of formal education as part of tax competence is not a new concept. Long before the phrase 'a particular level of education' was expressly cited in the Elucidation of GPTP Law, a number of implementing regulations had already provided space for formal education. MoF Decree 576/2000, Government Regulation (Gov. Reg.) 80/2007, MoF Reg. 22/2008, through to Gov. Reg. 74/2011 form part of the history of that regulation.
MoF Reg. 111/2014 even provided a specific mechanism for the recognition of qualifications for graduates holding a Bachelor's degree (S-1) or a four-year diploma (D-4) in a tax study programme to obtain a Level A Tax Consultant Certificate. However, that mechanism never truly operated in practice.
When education had not yet been expressly cited in the GPTP Law, implementing regulations had provided a recognition pathway. Yet when the GPTP Law subsequently expressly recognised 'a particular level of education' as one form of competence, why is a pathway to recognise that education no longer available under the new regulatory regime?
Ultimately, the argument "Everyone is examined with the same examination. Is that not the fairest approach?" does at first glance sound logical. However, the principle of equal treatment requires that we look one step further: "Are they genuinely in the same circumstances such that they must be treated in the same manner?"
The debate on the recognition of tax education should not be framed around who receives an advantage and who must sit an examination. The focus is on how to ensure every individual meets the same competency standard whilst providing proportionate recognition of competence already held.
Therefore, when MoF Reg. 55/2026 has positioned the competency examination as the sole gateway to obtaining a certificate of competence, the issue is no longer simply how competence is examined. The issue also touches upon the limits of the minister's regulatory authority as delineated in Constitutional Court Decision No. 63/PUU-XV/2017. The competency standard must certainly be the same, but the means of demonstrating it need not be standardised. Tax education that fulfils the standard should remain accorded space for recognition.