Aligning Competency Rules for Taxpayers‘ Attorneys and Legal Attorneys
THROUGH Decision No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026 pronounced on 15 October 2026, the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi/MK in Indonesian) rejects the judicial review of Article 44E paragraph (2) subparagraph e of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures (GPTP) Law in its entirety.
However, the rejection does not imply that implementing regulations issued by the minister of finance may govern the competency of taxpayers' attorneys without limitation. This is because the limits on the authority of implementing regulations concerning taxpayers' attorneys were already affirmed in Decision No. 63/PUU-XV/2017.
The MK considered that the issue raised by the applicant was essentially the same as the issue in Decision No. 63/PUU-XV/2017. As there was 'no strong and fundamental reason to depart from the position in the previous decision', the MK stated in its legal considerations that those considerations apply mutatis mutandis.
This implies that implementing regulations relating to the competency of taxpayers' attorneys should be limited to technical and administrative rules, without restricting the constitutional rights of citizens and without restricting or expanding rights and obligations.
The MK also reminded that 'implementing regulations issued by the minister of finance concerning the competency requirements of taxpayers' attorneys … must not contain substantive provisions of the matters referred to in those legal considerations'.
Accordingly, the MK did not assess the ministerial regulation in this decision, thus, the rejection does not imply that the ministerial regulation, as an implementing rule already in force, automatically complies with the limits on authority affirmed by the MK, namely, that it must be purely technical and administrative.
The MK's affirmation serves more as guidelines for regulating the competency of taxpayers' attorneys that may be governed by ministerial regulation as an implementing rule under a law.
When the KUP Law allows various pathways to tax competency, yet the minister of finance regulation, as the implementing regulation, instead narrows this to a single competency gateway and closes the previous pathways, it may be argued that such regulation is no longer purely technical and administrative but rather governs the requirements to become an attorney.
Two Laws, One Competency Principle
Setting aside the above debate, on the one hand, the rules governing taxpayers' attorneys have been amended through MoF Reg. 44/2026 and MoF Reg. 55/2026. The recognition of competency is directed towards a single-gateway competency examination. Meanwhile, the use of other evidence of competency, such as formal education qualifications, certain certifications or tax course/training certificates, will no longer be permitted after 31 December 2026.
On the other hand, the government is preparing to transfer the guidance of the Tax Court to the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung/MA in Indonesian), guided by the principles of soft landing and hold harmless. The draft presidential regulation that was submitted for public consultation on 23 September 2026 retains the existing rules on legal attorneys during the transitional period.
These two developments reveal two regulatory paradoxes, as follows.
First, the implementing regulations concerning taxpayers' attorneys narrow the pathways for the recognition of competency formerly allowed by the law. Second, taxpayers' attorneys and legal attorneys, both grounded in the same principle of competency, now have different gateways for demonstrating tax competency.
Article 32 paragraph (3a) of the GPTP Law requires taxpayers' attorneys to possess 'certain competencies in taxation', with exceptions for the husband, wife or family members related by blood or marriage up to the second degree of lineage. In the Elucidation of this article, certain competencies include, among others, (i) a certain level of education, (ii) certification and/or (iii) guidance by an association or the Ministry of Finance.
Meanwhile, Article 34 paragraph (2) of the Tax Court Law uses a different formulation but departs from a similar principle. Legal attorneys must possess 'broad knowledge and expertise in statutory tax laws and regulations' and must fulfil other requirements set by the minister.
This implies that both laws place tax competency as the primary element, without designating a single type of examination as the sole form of evidence.
However, the alignment has begun to shift following the introduction of MoF Reg. 44/2026 and MoF Reg. 55/2026. A tax consultant licence (for tax consultants) or a certificate of registration (surat keterangan terdaftar/SKT in Indonesian) (for other parties) may only be obtained once a person holds a certificate of competence (SKK). The SKK requires passing a competency examination in the field of taxation (uji kompetensi di bidang perpajakan/UKP in Indonesian).
This direction differs from the rules on legal attorneys under MoF Reg. 184/2017 (which, pursuant to the draft presidential regulation, will remain in force), which recognises several pathways for demonstrating competency, including (i) formal education, (ii) certification and (iii) certain experience.
Pursuant to Article 4 of MoF Reg. 184/2017, to become legal attorneys at the Tax Court, tax expertise may be demonstrated through a bachelor's degree (S-1) or diploma (D-4) in fiscal administration, accounting, taxation and/or customs and excise from an accredited university.
Graduates of S-1 or D-4 programmes in other fields may also qualify with additional qualifications, such as a D-3 diploma in taxation and/or customs and excise, a tax training/course certificate, a customs and excise expertise certificate or experience working in a government agency in a relevant technical field.
This difference is illustrated, for example, in the case of a law graduate holding a tax course/training certificate. From 2027, such qualifications will no longer be sufficient to become a taxpayers' attorney in the category of other parties without satisfying the new competency examination requirements.
Conversely, the same qualifications remain recognised as one of the bases for demonstrating competency to obtain a Tax Court attorney licence under MoF Reg. 184/2017, provided the other requirements are fulfilled. The tax competency held has not changed, yet recognition of the evidence of that competency differs as a result of regulations that are no longer aligned.
Maintaining Continuity, Restoring Alignment
The guidelines affirmed in Constitutional Court Decision No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026 render the restructuring of continuity of taxpayer assistance, from the administrative stage through to the resolution of disputes before the court, increasingly relevant.
Audit, objection, appeal and civil review are interrelated stages in the resolution of tax matters. When a person fulfils the requirements to serve as a legal attorney at the Tax Court but does not fulfil the requirements to act as a taxpayers' attorney at the administrative stage, the taxpayer may potentially need to use different advisers.
Formal education can be assessed through accreditation or standardisation and learning outcomes, certification through verified competency standards and guidance as well as professional experience, provided that objective and accountable assessment mechanisms are available. Diversity of educational backgrounds or multidisciplinary expertise and professions in the field of taxation may, in fact, become a strength when accompanied by comparable competency standards.
The consolidation of the Tax Court under the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court Decision No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026 provide the momentum to restructure the relationship between the taxpayers' attorney and legal attorney regimes to enable their alignment.
There are at least three agenda items that warrant attention, as follows.
First, aligning the basic tax competency standards for taxpayers' attorneys and legal attorneys. Differences in function may continue to be accommodated without having to create fundamental differences in the recognition of tax competency.
Second, reviewing the restriction on pathways for recognising competency in MoF Reg. 44/2026 and MoF Reg. 55/2026 without waiting for a judicial review before the Supreme Court. Education, certification, guidance as well as professional experience may be considered as recognition pathways, provided they fulfil clear standards and verification mechanisms.
Third, ensuring that regulatory changes provide legal certainty for parties who have already fulfilled the requirements. The principles of soft landing and hold harmless need to be translated into clear transitional provisions, including those concerning the validity and renewal of attorney licences.
Accordingly, Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XXIII/2025, which allows the restructuring of the legal attorney regime in the consolidation process under the Supreme Court, and Decision No. 341/PUU-XXIV/2026, which affirms the limits on regulating the competency of taxpayers' attorneys, should be used as momentum to simultaneously restructure the competency of taxpayers' attorneys and legal attorneys.
Such restructuring can be grounded in the Indonesian National Qualifications Framework (Kerangka Kualifikasi Nasional Indonesia/KKNI in Indonesian). The KKNI refers to a framework for levelling the competency of Indonesian human resources that aligns, equates and integrates the education sector with the training and work experience sector within a single scheme for recognising work capability (Darussalam, Septriadi and Kristiaji, 2024).
This framework comprises nine qualification levels and is now a reference for transforming higher education curricula for the learning outcomes to be equivalent to professional competency standards.
These agenda items can be realised through recommended entry pathways for the taxpayers' attorney profession, whether as a taxpayers' attorney or as a legal attorney at the Tax Court, grounded in the GPTP Law and the Tax Court Law and aligned with the KKNI.
The priority pathway (pathway 1) is available to graduates of higher education institutions in the field of basic tax competency who are recommended after fulfilling the relevant standards, without the need for a basic competency certification examination.
The equivalence or certification pathway (pathway 2) is available to graduates in fields other than the basic tax competency field (both law and non-law) as well as to graduates in that field from universities that have not yet fulfilled the standards for pathway 1. Law graduates need only complete professional education without a certification examination, since procedural law and evidentiary competency are generally already covered in their studies, whilst their tax competency is fulfilled through that professional education.
Non-law graduates, including taxation graduates from universities that have not yet fulfilled the standards, undertake professional education and a certification examination, which may be equated with the UKP. This implies the UKP is not abolished but becomes one form of demonstrating competency rather than the sole gateway.
Such professional education may be provided by universities, tax centres or other institutions. To maintain a single standard, the curriculum, modules and graduation assessments should ideally be developed jointly by the government (Ministry of Finance), professional organisations and universities, or through a neutral institution representing all stakeholders as proposed in Darussalam, Septriadi and Kristiaji (2024).
The recognition or acknowledgement pathway (pathway 3) is available to individuals whose expertise is proven, such as retired tax authority officials, practitioners, researchers and academics, subject to specified periods of service or experience. The priority pathway and equivalence pathway still require completion of an apprenticeship.
With this framework, both paradoxes can be resolved. The pathways for recognising tax competency once again align with the diverse forms of competency opened by law. Further, taxpayers' attorneys and legal attorneys are grounded in the same standards and pathways.
That is the essence of aligning the two regimes governing taxpayers' attorneys and legal attorneys, not standardising all requirements uniformly, but ensuring that diverse pathways converge on the same standard.