The freezing of personal bank accounts of a tax guarantor during corporate bankruptcy has sparked intense legal debate. This case centers on the boundaries of the DGT's active collection powers and the interpretation of the 5-year statute of limitations under Article 22 of the KUP Law.
The DGT blocked the personal accounts of AS (the guarantor) claiming that payments made by a Receiver in 2021 suspended the 5-year expiration period. However, the Plaintiff argued that a Receiver's payment is a statutory obligation, not a voluntary debt acknowledgment. Furthermore, the Plaintiff pointed out that blocking accounts after AS had already served 12 months of tax hostage-taking (gijzeling) was a disproportionate double burden.
The Board of Judges strictly stated that gijzeling is the last resort. If a taxpayer has completed the maximum duration of hostage-taking, further repressive measures violate legal principles. Crucially, the Judges ruled that payments by a Receiver in bankruptcy cannot reset the collection clock, as they are forced by law rather than initiated by the taxpayer's intent to acknowledge debt.
This ruling provides vital legal protection for tax guarantors against excessive collection actions. It confirms that tax authorities must respect the statute of limitations and cannot unilaterally extend the collection period based on bankruptcy proceedings. It sets a precedent that the legal certainty of taxpayers must be maintained above state revenue targets.
In conclusion, the court annulled the account blocking decision. The tax authority's actions were proven to violate formal procedures by ignoring the fact that the tax debt had legally expired. This case serves as a warning that administrative power has clear boundaries, especially regarding personal assets in corporate disputes.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id