Interpreting the Level Playing Field for Tax Attorneys and Consultants
LEVEL playing field has become one of the guiding principles in structuring the tax services ecosystem. The objective is reasonable and deserves support. Anyone providing tax services must possess competence and be subject to accountable governance.
However, before discussing the level playing field further, there are several fundamental questions that need to be addressed: (i) who actually occupies the same playing field?, (ii) what should be equalised? and (iii) what kind of equality needs to be established for the regulatory design to remain consistent with the law without exceeding the bounds of authority?
The first question is important because parties dealing with taxpayers do not always share the same functions, legal relationships and responsibilities. A taxpayer's attorney, for instance, cannot simply be equated with a party performing educational or administrative assistance functions for the public.
Accordingly, equality must begin by identifying parties that are indeed in a comparable position. Determining who belongs to the same playing field must precede any effort to equalise the rules of the game.
This distinction is also relevant when viewed through the lens of professional regulatory models. Referring to the Thuronyi–Vanistendael Model discussed in the book Kuasa dan Konsultan Pajak: Model dan Perbandingan, Indonesia sits between a partial regulation and a full regulation regime. One reason for this is that certain tax services, particularly those relating to the exercise of taxpayer rights and obligations under a special power of attorney, may only be performed by specific parties.
This position makes the question of a level playing field all the more important. When regulation restricts the performance of certain functions to parties satisfying specific qualifications, the issue is not merely who may perform those functions, but also what standards must be fulfilled and how such competence may be acquired and demonstrated.
This is where the second question becomes relevant, namely, what actually needs to be equalised? In the context of the tax attorney and consultant profession, one answer is competence. Anyone wishing to enter the profession must fulfil a basic standard of tax competence that can be objectively justified.
Differences in educational background should not result in different basic competence standards that must be satisfied. However, identical competence standards do not in themselves require identical means of achieving and demonstrating them.
The Elucidation of Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures (GPTP) Law itself provides guidance on this matter. Certain competencies include, inter alia, a specific level of education, certification and/or guidance by an association or the Ministry of Finance.
With this construction, the GPTP Law has opened recognition of diverse sources of competence formation. Education, certification and guidance are not identical, yet all three can lead to the requisite competence.
It is at this point that the design of MoF Reg. 55/2026 warrants closer examination. That regulation positions a competency assessment as the gateway to obtaining a certificate of competency (surat keterangan kompetensi/SKK in Indonesian). Both those whose competence has been developed through formal tax education and those from other backgrounds must ultimately pass through a competency assessment mechanism to obtain a certificate of competency.
The question then is not whether competence needs to be standardised. Clearly it does. The question is whether standardising competence must simultaneously mean standardising the pathway to achieving and demonstrating it.
One Basic Competence, Multiple Pathways
The multidisciplinary nature of taxation also provides another reason why the pathway to competence formation need not be singular. Law, accountancy and economics are closely intertwined with taxation. Political science and sociology are also relevant to understanding tax systems and behaviour. Accordingly, the development of competence in taxation must account for the contributions of various relevant disciplines.
As a consequence, graduates in law, accountancy, economics or other disciplines should remain allowed to enter the profession, provided they fulfil the requisite basic tax competence. This diversity of backgrounds is precisely what reinforces the case for multiple pathways to equivalent competence standards.
However, this openness does not mean that tax education loses its primary position. As discussed in the book Kuasa dan Konsultan Pajak: Model dan Perbandingan, the field of taxation or a field relevant to the practice of tax service provision, is positioned as the 'host discipline' in fulfilling professional competence qualifications. This approach can be found in the Philippines and Uganda, among others.
A similar logic applies to other professions. The educational field that develops the competencies required by a profession is accorded a primary or 'host' position on the pathway to that profession. Legal education, for example, serves as the 'host' for the legal profession. Similarly, architectural education serves as the 'host' for architects and health-related education for medical and health professionals.
Based on the foregoing, university graduates in tax competence disciplines should be accorded a priority pathway in the selection of prospective tax attorneys and consultants, provided their educational programme meets the required competence standards.
It should be understood that a priority pathway does not mean the profession is closed to other disciplines. Precisely because taxation is multidisciplinary, graduates from other fields may continue to enter the profession through an equivalence or certification pathway to fulfil the basic tax competencies they have not yet acquired. Thus, 'host discipline' does not mean monopoly and 'priority pathway' does not mean a reduction in standards. All pathways must still lead to an equivalent basic tax competence standard.
This construction is also consistent with the discussion of the principle of equal treatment as part of the broader concept of equality and justice in the Perspective piece Questioning Non-Recognition of Tax Education Post-MoF Reg. 55/202. Equality itself may be classified into two types: formal equality and substantive equality.
Requiring everyone to go through the same mechanism may appear formally equal. However, substantive equality actually demands that competence already acquired through an accountable pathway be taken into account. Those who have already obtained basic competence through an education that meets the required standards are plainly in a different position from those who have not.
It is here that the concept of a level playing field acquires a more substantive meaning. Equality need not mean a single gateway for everyone. What needs to be equalised is the ultimate competence standard, whilst the pathways to achieving and demonstrating it may vary.
A Three-Pathway Professional Design
This design must also take into account the question of the availability of tax experts. The government itself has identified the limited number of tax consultants as one of the reasons behind the level playing field restructuring of tax services. A similar concern has been identified in the book Kuasa dan Konsultan Pajak: Model dan Perbandingan.
The diagnosis is therefore broadly the same: Indonesia needs more competent tax experts. The question is how the need to increase quantity can be reconciled with the imperative to maintain quality. The answer is certainly not to lower competence standards, but to expand the available pathways.
This also concerns the interests of taxpayers. A shortage of tax attorneys and consultants amid high demand for tax services may drive up service fees and ultimately increase taxpayers' cost of compliance. Accordingly, the regulatory design must reconcile the quality, quantity and accessibility of tax services. Multiple pathways leading to equivalent competence standards may be part of the answer.
The book Kuasa dan Konsultan Pajak: Model dan Perbandingan has, in fact, already proposed a design that takes into account the need to increase the number of competent tax attorneys and consultants in proportion to demand. There are three entry pathways to the profession.
This design is also consistent with the Indonesian National Qualifications Framework (Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia/KKNI in Indonesian), which integrates education, vocational training and work experience within a framework for recognising qualifications and competencies. Under this approach, differences in the pathways to establish competence do not preclude equivalent qualification standards.
First, the priority pathway. This pathway is intended for university graduates in the field of basic tax competence from programmes that meet the required standards. This means that education must still fulfil a minimum basic tax competence curriculum standard, which may be developed jointly by stakeholders.
The curriculum, structure of tax subjects, credit hours, duration of study, learning outcomes and evaluation processes may all form part of the assessment. Recognition of education therefore does not mean a reduction in standards. On the contrary, recognition can serve as a quality assurance instrument, since universities gain an incentive to ensure their curriculum and educational process meet professional competence standards.
Second, the equivalence or certification pathway. This pathway is intended for graduates from fields other than basic tax competence. Competencies not acquired through prior education may be fulfilled through a basic tax competence professional education programme and certification. In such a design, competency assessments may be positioned primarily as an instrument to ensure that basic competence requirements are met by those who have not acquired them through a recognised educational pathway.
Third, the recognition or accreditation pathway. Competence need not only be developed through formal education. Extensive and demonstrable experience may also develop competence. Accordingly, a recognition pathway may be available to certain parties on the basis of objective competence and experience parameters.
These three pathways are illustrated more fully in the following table.
This design highlights one important point that is often overlooked in debates about the recognition of education. A priority pathway does not imply that completing one's education automatically turns someone into a tax attorney or consultant.
Education develops academic competence that may be subsequently supplemented by practical experience through an internship. The table also places the internship element within the pathway to the profession. This is important because professional competence is not only about what a person knows, but also their ability to apply that knowledge in practice.
With such a design, the recognition of formal education is not synonymous with the automatic granting of a practising right. What is recognised is the competence developed through education, whilst practical experience may be reinforced through internship. This approach is also consistent with the KKNI, which integrates education, training and work experience.
Accordingly, the debate over the recognition of education should not be reduced to a choice between "university graduates being immediately recognised" or "everyone being reassessed from scratch". There are more proportionate design options: recognising competence already acquired, supplementing competence still required and ensuring that all pathways lead to an equivalent professional standard.
After Basic Competence Is Fulfilled, What's Next?
The level playing field question certainly does not end once a person has fulfilled the basic competence requirements and entered the profession. It is at this stage that the non-homogeneous nature of tax services becomes relevant.
The competence required to provide income tax return preparation services differs from that required for tax litigation. Expertise in providing tax planning advice also differs from providing tax research services. Accordingly, standardising the competence of every individual does not necessarily guarantee the availability of quality tax services.
A professional's competence also continues to develop. A person may deepen their expertise in transfer pricing, international taxation, income tax, value added tax, tax litigation or other fields through continuing education, professional experience, certification and/or continuing professional development (pengembangan profesional berkelanjutan/PPL in Indonesian).
In this context, a further question then arises. If everyone has met an equivalent basic tax competence standard, does the development of a professional's scope of practice still need to be restricted through an A, B and C classification system?
The design proposed in the book Kuasa dan Konsultan Pajak: Model dan Perbandingan actually moves away from this approach. Basic competence becomes the standard for entering the profession. Thereafter, professional development relies more on competence and specialisation that are continually built through education, experience, certification and/or PPL.
This approach also better reflects the reality that professional expertise develops in diverse ways. A person need not master every field of taxation to the same level in order to become an expert in a particular area.
The idea of abandoning the A, B and C classification system naturally requires more fundamental change. However, even if that classification is retained, recognition of the diverse pathways to competence formation should not be abandoned alongside it. Classification may remain, but competence at each level may be demonstrated through different pathways, provided equivalent standards are met.
Ultimately, the design of a level playing field does not exist in a vacuum. Its regulation must still operate within the corridors established by statute. As noted above, the Elucidation of Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the GPTP Law already recognises a specific level of education, certification and/or guidance by an association or the Ministry of Finance as sources of competence.
Moreover, the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi/MK in Indonesian) Decision No. 63/PUU-XV/2017 has set limits on the ministerial authority to regulate matters relating to taxpayers' attorneys. Accordingly, the competence design for taxpayers' attorneys cannot be assessed solely based on policy effectiveness. It must also be read against the choices made by the legislature and the limits of ministerial regulatory authority as delineated by the Constitutional Court.
The objective of establishing a level playing field is certainly worthy of support. However, equality does not imply that every party must be placed in the same category, that every prospective professional must pass through the same gateway or that every professional must develop with uniform competence.
A level playing field should be built by ensuring that parties in the same arena satisfy an equivalent basic competence standard. The pathways to achieving and demonstrating that competence may differ. Once within the profession, every professional is then subject to equal rules of engagement, whilst developing their own competence and specialisation.
Viewed in this way, broadening access to the profession and safeguarding quality need not be in conflict. Indonesia can expand the pool of tax experts without lowering the mandatory standards. At the same time, education, certification and experience each find their proportionate place in shaping a competent profession. That is where the level playing field finds its true meaning: not uniformity, but equality built upon competence.