pro-visioner.com/pvk – Women in the Perspective of Taxation in Indonesia , How does Indonesian taxation treat women as tax subjects? Are women disadvantaged?
this time is very interesting because it is related to gender issues, especially if it is not about equality between men and women in this country. Thus, the issue of women in the perspective of tax regulations in Indonesia is also very interesting. One of the questions that arises is how much women contribute to state revenue? How does tax view women as tax subjects in this country? How to optimally utilize tax regulations for women in Indonesia?
Before we discuss these issues one by one, the author presents comparative data between men and women in the total population of Indonesia according to the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) in 2020.
It can be seen from the table above that the male population outnumbers the female population, with a difference of around three million people. This shows indirectly that the dominance of men over women is quite large in this country. However, this statistic is not to conclude that women have no contribution to state revenue, because the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (NPWP) does not include gender data, so it is difficult for us to get a comparison between male and female NPWP owners.
female NPWP owners. Similarly, in the results of the State Revenue Module of Individual Income Tax Revenue Type: we cannot specifically calculate the amount of contribution based on gender.
Why is that? Because the tax that enters the state account through MPN is in the aggregate of all taxpayers in the country. Therefore, the conclusion that women have no real contribution to state revenue is a false statement because there is no concrete data in the Tax Administration System at the DGT.
However, the author would like to convey a concept of tax administration in a family where in one family consisting of father, mother, and children only one (1) NPWP is sufficient. Because the principle of taxation for families in Indonesia adheres to the paternalistic principle, namely actions that limit the freedom of a person or group for their own good, in other words, there is a superior figure in the family who is fully responsible for the family including tax obligations. The figure is attributed to the father or husband who is a man or male.
In this principle, a woman who before marriage already has an NPWP, when she gets married, she can immediately apply for the elimination of the NPWP at the KPP where she registered herself. The married woman will still get an NPWP, but the NPWP used is her husband’s NPWP, so that the NPWP card she has will have additional information on her wife. This is called the unity of tax obligations in the family.
So what if the wife wants to keep using a different NPWP from her husband? Our tax regulations accommodate this but of course with the risk that must be understood that with the existence of two NPWPs in one family, each family member has a separate tax obligation which in tax terms is called MT (Choosing Separate), MT is treated the same as husband and wife who make a Separate Property (PH) agreement in calculating tax obligations.
How is the explanation?
The author will first explain that from a tax perspective, a woman with an unmarried status has the same rights as a man. The quota for the addition of Non-Taxable Income (PTKP) for female and male workers is available in the same amount of three (3) people. This means that for the income earned, they can bear 3 people each who are eligible to be a component of income deduction. This does not cause technical or philosophical polemics, considering that the principles of justice in taxation and equality in gender can be fulfilled.
If a married woman wants the NPWP to join her husband, the PTKP that she can use if she chooses to work is TK without dependents or TK/0, the status of K with dependents (maximum three) can only be owned by the husband because it is in accordance with the paternalistic principle as the author has stated earlier.
However, it turns out that there are things that are often not known by ordinary people about this tax regulation that can still be utilized by married women, namely married women can take the husband’s PTKP, namely K with all dependents, provided that there is a minimum certificate from the sub-district office explaining that the husband has no income or work. That way, the married woman at her place of work can get PTKP K with her dependents.
How is the SPT report?
For married women with NPWP following their husband or one entity, there is no obligation to report it because the obligation to report it is on the husband’s side, as well as for married women with the condition of taking the husband’s PTKP rights, namely K at the place of work, there is still no need to report the Individual Annual SPT because it uses her husband’s NPWP.
It is different if the woman is married but chooses Separate (MT) or Separate Assets (PH). Article 8 of the Income Tax Law which adheres to the principle of income aggregation states that husband and wife are an economic unit (one family entity). This principle has led us to the understanding that all profits and losses received by the wife include the husband’s profits and losses, with the fulfillment of tax obligations carried out by the head of the family.
The tax calculation for husband and wife who choose PH or MT will be calculated based on the net income of the husband and wife with the amount of tax to be paid is the proportion of their net income. The difference that arises is the right to PTKP used by husbands and wives who choose separate or separate assets is K/I where there is one additional PTKP for wives who use this option.
Another difference is the proportion of payment between husband and wife. For those who choose not to carry out tax obligations separately (one NPWP), the wife’s income from work will be considered final so that it is not included in the calculation of the husband’s income to be reported in his individual Annual Tax Return. In fact, if the wife does business, the income and calculation of tax obligations remain with the husband. However, if they choose MT or PH, the proportion is certain between husband and wife depending on the calculation of the tax proportion.
read also
For wives who use this option.
From the three tables above, it is clear that there is an increase in the amount of tax payable due to the combination of income between husband and wife. In addition, there is also an increase in the tax burden of each husband and wife. What needs to be observed is that the percentage increase in tax burden between husband and wife is not comparable. Initially, the wife only owed Rp 22,225,000 in tax. But when she got married and chose the PH/MT option, she had to pay a tax of IDR 33,166,667 with a percentage increase of 49.23 percent.
Although the husband also experiences an increase in tax payments, the percentage increase in taxes payable is far below the wife, which is 32.77 percent (calculated from the difference in tax payable after marriage and before marriage per total tax payable after marriage). On the other hand, if you do not choose the PH/MT option, the amount of income tax payable in a family borne by the husband is smaller than if you choose the MT/PH status, so this option is worth using for married women because it is much more economical.
From the illustration above, what is quite intriguing is that when a woman decides to carry out her own tax obligations or chooses to separate assets, what happens is the allocation of the tax burden whose percentage increase is not equal to that of men. The principle of fairness is questioned, and the issue of gender bias in the tax perspective needs to be questioned. But if we look at it from a different perspective, it turns out that there are other things that are beneficial with this paternalistic pattern, namely even though women are “forced” to follow their husband’s NPWP, but when there is a possibility that she has to separate from her husband (due to death or divorce) then she is still considered to have no obligation to report her annual SPT because she still has an NPWP card as a wife. Another case is if the ex-husband has reported his divorce to the local Tax Office to remove his ex-wife’s list of dependents as well as revoke his ex-wife’s NPWP.
The critical question is how much of this information is known by the married male taxpayers in this country? That is also if they want to do the procedure mentioned above. So, according to the author’s view as the closing of this paper is that women are greatly benefited by the existence of taxation regulations in this country even though it uses the principle of paternalism in it. What women need is certainly not a matter of male domination over them but practices in the field that protect them and benefit them. In this case, the tax regulation in this country has accommodated all of the above.
