MANIPULATION OF TRANSACTION VALUE TO REDUCE FEES FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND AND BUILDING RIGHTS Suhaimi

The purpose of this study is to analyze the responsibility of taxpayers who manipulate transaction values in order to reduce Fees for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights (BPHTB). This research is inspired by the results of previous research that many BPHTB taxpayers manipulate transaction values to reduce BPHTB, but they are missed from legal responsibility, so that their actions seem normal in society and are not perceived as despicable and violating of the law. This research is a normative legal research using a statutory approach, so that it can be seen how the responsibility of taxpayers who are not honest in paying BPHTB. The results showed that in statutory regulations cannot be found administrative sanctions imposed on taxpayers who manipulated transaction values to reduce BPHTB. In fact taxpayer's actions are really detrimental regional finance, because their taxes are paid to the Regional Treasury as the original financial resources. Sanctions contained in statutory regulations are only criminal sanctions, as regulated in Article 174 of Law Number 28 of 2009 with the threat of imprisonment for a maximum of one year if due to negligence and a maximum of two years if done intentionally.


159
Levies (hereinafter referred to as Law Number 28 of 2009), which divides the Types of Regional Taxes into two types, namely: provincial taxes and regency/city taxes.
Types of regency/city taxes according to Article 2 paragraph (2)  (j) rural and urban land and building tax; and (k) fees for acquisition of rights on land and buildings.
The use of BPHTB as a regional tax (regency/city) by Law Number 28 of 2009, it is hoped that the BPHTB can become a source of regional income. "BPHTB, which was previously a central tax, has been converted into a district / city tax. There are several objectives that are expected to be achieved by transferring BPHTB from the Central Government to Regency/City Governments. It is hoped that the transfer of BPHTB to the regions can increase the Regional Original Revenue (PAD) and improve the structure of the Regional Expenditure Budget (APBD) or in Aceh it is called the Regency Budget (APBK). Likewise, the transfer of BPHTB to the regions is expected to improve services to the community, and improve transparency and accountability aspects in its management" (Ikramullah, Ismail, & Syahbandir, 2016). "BPHTB adheres to a self-assessment system where taxpayers are entrusted with calculating, reporting and paying the amount of tax payable by themselves using a Deposit of Taxes for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights, and reporting it without being based on the issuance of a tax assessment" (Ikramullah, Ismail, & Syahbandir , 2016). According to Ridwansyah (Ridwansyah, 2020), "the procedures used by BPHTB taxpayers in compliance are based on a selfassessment system, namely the taxpayer calculates and pays his own tax debt. With this selfassessment, especially at BPHTB, it is hoped that the public can easily fulfill their tax obligations and increase tax awareness, especially taxes that arise when the acquisition of rights to land and buildings occurs".

Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Manipulation of Transaction Value to Reduce Fees for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 157-176. Suhaimi 160 In Article 87 paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 of 2009 stipulates that: The basis for the imposition of BPHTB is the Acquisition Value of Tax Objects. Specifically for sale and purchase of rights over land and buildings, the intended Tax Object Acquisition Value is the transaction price in the sale and purchase of land and building rights. The consequence of the selft assessment system in calculating and paying BPHTB is that the calculation and payment of BPHTB is not in accordance with the applicable provisions, because certain parties manipulate or reduce the transaction price in the process of buying and selling land and buildings. This action is done to minimize or reduce the amount of BPHTB that will be paid.
Based on the results of previous research, several problems were found in BPHTB payments: First, Ridwansyah research results (Ridwansyah, 2020), "The average transaction price submitted by BPHTB taxpayers is below 50% of the actual transaction price". "If the Regional Financial Management Agency (BPKD) can accept the price submitted and the price is already above the Tax Object Selling Value (NJOP), then the BPKD sets the price as the basis for determining the BPHTB. Meanwhile, if the price submitted is not reasonable and is still below the NJOP, the BPKD will raise the price to above the NJOP and the price is determined as the basis for determining the BPHTB" (Ridwansyah, Yani, & Suhaimi, 2020). Second, Ravianto & Purnawan research results (Ravianto & Purnawan, 2017), "The reality that occurs in the people of Surakarta City shows that BPHTB tax deposits are not in accordance with the real conditions in the field, which is not in accordance with the value of land sale and purchase transactions between sellers and buyers, most of which are stated in the transaction value. below market price, to avoid paying BPHTB tax".
Based on the results of the above research, it is clear that the finding of taxpayers who are not honest in reporting the transaction price when paying BPHTB, some even report the transaction price is less than 50% of the actual transaction price. This is of course very detrimental to the regions, because some of the BPHTB that should have entered the Regional Treasury and became PAD, eventually just disappeared. However, this study does not discuss the responsibilities of the to land and buildings. In addition, the PAD of a district/city will increase. In general, the higher the contribution of local revenue and the higher the ability of the region to finance its own capacity, it will show a positive regional financial performance. In this case, positive financial performance can be interpreted as regional financial independence in financing regional needs and supporting the implementation of regional autonomy in the area (Rani, Syahbandir, & Purnama, 2010).

RESEARCH METHODS
This research is a normative legal research, namely research by conducting an assessment of the application of legal principles or norms in positive legal rules (Ibrahim, 2007). Regarding the research approach, this study uses a statutory approach, namely by examining statutory regulations relating to local taxes, especially those related to BPHTB.
The research method used in this research is the socio-legal method, by looking at the law which is influenced by various factors. This method continues to depart from legal norms (Sulaiman, 2018), especially those related to the legal accountability of BPHTB taxpayers. Based on the empirical conditions obtained from previous research, then researched and examined the legal rules governing it, it turns out that taxpayers who manipulate transaction values in order to

Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Manipulation of Transaction Value to Reduce Fees for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 157-176. Suhaimi 162 reduce BPHTB taxes can be held accountable legally. Thus the data researched and examined in this study are still data obtained from legal materials relating to local taxes, especially those related to BPHTB. The legal material is a guideline for seeing the reality that occurs in society.
Furthermore, the data analysis was carried out qualitatively.

1) Regulation and Stipulation of Land Rights Acquisition Fees (BPHTB)
In line with the change in the paradigm of the government administration system from a centralized system to a decentralized system, one of the government policies in making the system change a success is to establish BPHTB as a Regional Tax, namely as a type of Regency/City Regional Tax. According to Article 2 paragraph (1)  Considering that tax collection (including BPHTB as Regency/City Regional Tax) must be approved by the people, tax collection is regulated and based on law. Article 23 letter A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia states that: "Taxes and other levies which are forcing for state purposes shall be regulated by law". According to Simanjuntak and Mukhlis (Simanjuntak & Mukhlis, 2012) "that tax is an obligation which is a form of transfer of income from the citizen sector to the state, with provisions made based on laws that can be enforced and used in the interests of the state (public)". According to Siahaan (Siahaan, 2003): "One type of tax which is a tax potential source that should be explored according to the economic situation and conditions as well as the current development of the nation is the type of Tax on Acquisition of Rights on Land and Building (BPHTB) and Rural and Urban Land and Building Tax (PBB-P2)".
The law referred to above is Law Number 34 of 2000 concerning Regional Taxes and Regional Levies which has been updated to Law Number 28 of 2009 concerning Regional Taxes and Regional Levies. This law provides more autonomy for local governments to manage their finances. One form of financial autonomy is realized in the form of delegation of tax collection authority from the Central Government to Regional Governments".
Since the BPHTB Law is only given 1 (one) year after the enactment of Law Thus, "there are two ways to obtain the right to land and buildings, namely by the existence of legal events and legal actions. Acquisition of rights to land and buildings through inheritance occurs due to legal events, namely the death of the heir as the original owner of the inheritance and the existence of an heir who directly obtains rights to the inheritance. Acquisition of rights over land and buildings that occurs due to inheritance from the original owner to the heirs is regulated in Article 26 of the UUPA" (Sutedi, 2006). Meanwhile, the acquisition of rights to land and buildings due to legal actions includes: buying and selling, exchanging, grants, income in the company, separation of rights and other legal actions.
This acquisition has been detailed in Article 85 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 28 of 2009 includes: (a) Transfer of rights due to: 1) buying and selling; 2) interchangeable; 3) grants; 4) will grants; 5) inheritance; 6) entry into a company or other legal entity; 7) separation of rights resulting in a transfer; 8) appointment of buyers in the auction; 9) implementing the decision of a judge who has permanent legal force; 10) business combination; 11) business consolidation; 12) business expansion; 13) gifts; (b) granting new rights because: 1) continuation of waiver of rights; or 2) apart from waiving rights".
Thus the object of BPHTB in general is the acquisition of rights to land and/or buildings. Regarding the standard basis for the imposition of BPHTB, according to Article 87 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 of 2009 is: "Tax Object Acquisition Value (NPOP)". However, the acquisition value varies from one legal act to another, some even have an acquisition value of 0 (zero) or no acquisition value at all. One example is a grant of land and/or building rights from parents to their children, where the parents never determine the price or value of the object of land and/or building being given. On the other hand, children who receive rights to land and/or buildings by receiving these grants also do not know and the acquisition value is not determined. In this case, even though the acquisition value is 0 (zero), the rights to the land and/or buildings that are obtained are still valuable tax objects, and those who receive or receive them also receive additional value for the assets in the form of land and/or buildings, so that those who get it are still subject to BPHTB.
Article 87 Paragraph (2)  The provisions regarding the imposition of BPHTB as described above are almost entirely adopted by the Regional Governments. This is as explained earlier that BPHTB is a regional tax and no longer a central government tax. So that the authority to collect it no longer rests with the Central Government, but has become the authority of the Regional Government, especially the The basis for the Regional Government in imposing BPHTB is of course through the District/City Regional Regulations (Perda), especially for the Aceh Province area called the Regency/City Qanun. "BPHTB, which has now been converted into regional taxes, obliges the Regional Government to make regional regulations that specifically regulate the imposition of the BPHTB. The content of the regional regulations refers to the provisions of the BPHTB referred to 167 in the Regional Tax and Retribution Law, namely Law Number 28 of 2009" (Ridwansyah, 2020). This is also in accordance with the provisions stipulated in Article 95 paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 of 2009, which states that: "Taxes are stipulated by Regional Regulations". The tax referred to here is Regional Tax  BPHTB is regulated separately in a Regional Regulation, but there are also regencies/cities that include it in Regional Tax Regulations, one of which regulates BPHTB, such as the Regional Regulations for Makassar City and Pontianak City.

Payments
As previously explained, BPHTB is a regional tax stipulated by a Regional Regulation or Qanun (the designation in the Aceh Province). BPHTB is imposed on the acquisition of rights to land and buildings with reference to Law Number 28 of 2009. Therefore, almost all material or norms in Law Number 28 of 2009 was adopted by the Regional Regulation or Regency/City Qanun which regulates BPHTB. In other words, what is regulated in the Regional Regulation or Qanun BPHTB is a "copy paste" of Law Number 28 of 2009.
According to Ridwansyah (Ridwansyah, 2020), it was found that there were taxpayers who were dishonest or manipulated in reporting the transaction value when paying BPHTB, some even reported the transaction value was less than 50% of the actual transaction value, there were also those who reported an unfair value and under the NJOP. The consequence is that it will be detrimental to regional finances, because some of the BPHTB that should have gone to the Regional Treasury and become PAD, eventually just disappeared because they did not go to the Regional Treasury.
Similar to the results of the above research, the results of research by Ravianto & Purnawan (Ravianto & Purnawan, 2017) show that the reality that occurs in the people of Surakarta City shows that BPHTB tax payments do not match the value of land sale and purchase transactions between sellers and buyers, where the value of the buying and selling transactions listed below the market price, to avoid paying BPHTB tax.

Manipulation of Transaction Value to Reduce Fees for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights
Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Suhaimi Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 157-176. 169 Transaction price manipulation occurred because the BPHTB collection system was carried out using a self-assessment system. "The collection of BPHTB is carried out using a self-assessment system, in which taxpayers are given the confidence to self-calculate and pay the tax owed themselves by using a Deposit of Taxes for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights (SSB) and reporting without being based on any tax assessment" (Ridwansyah, 2020 ). Self assessment system as one of the tax collection systems has its own characteristics, namely that the authority to determine the amount of tax lies with the taxpayer itself. So that taxpayers are required to participate in the calculation, payment and reporting (Handayani, 2007). According to this system, tax payable is paid by taxpayers themselves based on tax laws and regulations. In this case the taxpayer registers, calculates, calculates, pays/deposits and reports the tax owed with the Regional Tax Return (Ridwansyah, 2020).
In fact, "the Self Assessment system puts full trust in the Taxpayer (WP) to carry out their tax obligations" (Hadzil, Syahbandir, & Hasyim, 2019). However, in reality the Self Assessment system in collecting BPHTB has opened opportunities for taxpayers to manipulate or act dishonestly in reporting the transaction value as NPOP. So it is not impossible that the NPOP is under the NJOP. As a result, there are tax objects that should be taxable (must pay BPHTB), but are not taxable (do not pay BPHTB). Then there are also tax objects whose BPHTB should be high, but when they are paid the BPHTB is low, because the transaction value reported by the taxpayer has been fabricated and does not match the actual NPOP.
The taxpayer's act of manipulating or acting dishonestly in reporting the transaction value as NPOP, with the intention of avoiding the BPHTB or BPHTB imposition that is less than the actual one, is an act of dishonesty and cannot be legally justified. This is understandable because "taxes are used for the state's needs for the greatest prosperity of the people. Payment of taxes is a manifestation of the obligations and roles of taxpayers to participate directly and jointly carry out state financing and national development. In accordance with the philosophy of tax law, paying

Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Manipulation of Transaction Value to Reduce Fees for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 157-176. Suhaimi 170 taxes is not only an obligation, but it is the right of every citizen to participate and participate in state financing and national development" (Cermati, 2016).
Considering how great the tax benefits are for the public and the state, it is only right that dishonest taxpayers who manipulate the transaction value as NPOP in the imposition of BPHTB are legally responsible. The responsibilities that can be imposed on the taxpayer are: First, liability under state administrative law. The taxpayer's act of manipulating the transaction value as NPOP in the imposition of BPHTB is an act that violates the law, especially the State Administrative Law.
Administrative sanctions are the lowest and lowest sanctions given to taxpayers who do not comply with taxes. These sanctions include several parts, namely interest, penalties and tax increases (Linovhr.com, 2019). The form of administrative sanctions that can be imposed is in the form of fines. However, in Law Number 28 of 2009 which is used as a guideline for BPHTB regional regulations in all districts/cities, there is not a single article that regulates administrative sanctions that can be imposed on taxpayers who perform the actions referred to above. So that in the regional regulations in all regencies/cities, there are no administrative sanctions imposed on BPHTB taxpayers.
The description above shows how important a sanction is, especially administrative sanctions for BPHTB taxpayers who deliberately commit violations as mentioned above. "In terms of implementation, administrative sanctions are actually more effective than criminal sanctions, because administrative sanctions can be carried out directly by administrative officials without waiting for a court ruling, as long as the specified conditions are not obeyed or violated.
Meanwhile, criminal sanctions must wait for a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force" (Setiadi, 2009 which states that: (1) Taxpayers who due to their negligence do not submit Regional Tax Returns (SPTPD) or fill in incorrect or incomplete information or attach false information so as to cause losses to regional finances can be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of one year or a fine. a maximum of two times the amount of unpaid or underpaid taxes; (2) Taxpayers who deliberately fail to submit SPTPD or fill in incorrect or incomplete information or attach false information so that they are detrimental to regional finances can be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or a maximum fine of four. times the amount of unpaid or underpaid taxes. 173 not submit SPTPD, or filled it incorrectly or incompletely, or attached incorrect information; Adverse regional finances; (b) Article 174 paragraph (2) Law Number 28 of 2009: Taxpayers, namely people who have met the requirements to be subject to the obligation to pay BPHTB tax in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations; Intentionally not submitting SPTPD, or intentionally filling it in incorrect or incomplete, or deliberately attaching false information; Adverse regional finances.
Article 174 paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 of 2009 is an act of BPHTB taxpayers committed because of their negligence (accidentally), while Article 174 paragraph (2) of Law Number 28 of 2009 is an act that is done on purpose. If we look at the acts committed by the taxpayer as described above, it can be said that the act is not actually a criminal act as is the case with a common criminal act. Initially, the act did not constitute a criminal act, but was later criminalized into a criminal act.
This is in accordance with the function of criminal law is to protect and at the same time maintain a balance between the interests of the State and society, the interests of the State and individuals and the interests of the perpetrator of the crime and the victim. In order to protect and maintain a balance between the interests of the State and the interests of the community, the interests of individuals and the interests of the perpetrator of the criminal act and the victim and to prevent the occurrence of criminal acts, it is necessary to criminalize several acts that were previously not criminal acts (Rizanizarli, 2014).
Based on the description above, it can be understood that dishonest taxpayers, who report the transaction value of the acquisition of land and/or building rights not properly, manipulate the transaction value that is not in accordance with the NPOP, can be held accountable according to the criminal law. If this is done intentionally, a maximum imprisonment of two years may be imposed or a maximum fine of four times the amount of unpaid or underpaid taxes. If the act is committed because of his negligence, he may be subject to a maximum imprisonment of one year or a

Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Manipulation of Transaction Value to Reduce Fees for Acquisition of Land and Building Rights Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 157-176. Suhaimi 174 maximum fine of two times the amount of unpaid or underpaid taxes. This is a natural thing, especially if the taxpayer's actions can harm state finances.

CONCLUSIONS
In Law Number 28 of 2009 and a number of Regional Regulations or Regency/City Qanuns, there is no administrative sanction imposed on taxpayers who manipulate transaction values in order to reduce BPHTB. Even though the taxpayer's actions are very detrimental to regional finances, because they do not enter the Regional Treasury as PAD. Law Number 28 of 2009 and a number of Regional Regulations or Regency/City Qanuns only regulate administrative sanctions for PPAT/Notaries who sign deeds of transfer of rights to land and/or buildings, whose taxpayers have not paid BPHTB or have not submitted proof of BPHTB payments. Whereas taxpayers who manipulate transaction values in order to reduce BPHTB are not subject to administrative sanctions, but are only subject to criminal sanctions as stipulated in Article 174 of Law Number 28 of 2009. In this case the maximum sentence is one year or a maximum fine of two times the tax payable for a taxpayer who commits due to his negligence and a maximum penalty of two years or a maximum fine of four times the tax payable for the taxpayer who commits it on purpose.