The Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) now allows taxpayers to respond to a Request for Explanation of Data and/or Information (Surat Permintaan Penjelasan atas Data dan/atau Keterangan/SP2DK) through video conferencing. During these virtual meetings, taxpayers are expected to explain the data and transactions identified by the tax authority to their assigned account representative (AR).
Taxpayers are required to respond to an SP2DK within 14 days of issuance or receipt of the letter. Their explanation forms part of the tax compliance monitoring process and may serve as the basis for any subsequent action taken by the tax authority.
One provision of the new procedure, however, has attracted particular attention. While tax offices are required to record the virtual meeting, taxpayers, their representatives, authorized proxies, and employees are prohibited from recording, storing, or distributing any audio or video of the session. If a taxpayer does not agree to these terms, the meeting may be terminated.
The provision is set out in Director General of Taxes Circular Letter Number SE-8/PJ/2026, concerning Guidelines for Taxpayer Compliance Supervision issued on July 15, 2026. According to the DGT, the recording requirement is intended to standardize procedures, safeguard confidential information, and ensure the availability of official documentation. Nevertheless, allowing only the tax authority to retain a complete recording while prohibiting taxpayers from doing the same raises legitimate questions about procedural fairness and the balance of rights between the parties.
One Party Controls the Record
The relationship between the tax authority and taxpayers is, by nature, not one of equal bargaining power. The DGT has the statutory authority to conduct compliance supervision and request explanations, while taxpayers are required to respond to inquiries regarding their tax affairs.
The imbalance becomes more pronounced when only one party is permitted to maintain a complete record of the discussion. When it comes to SP2DK, a recording is more than a technical record of a meeting. It captures the questions raised, the explanations provided, and any guidance or clarification exchanged throughout the discussion.
Disputes may arise later if the parties have different recollections of what was said. A taxpayer may believe they received a particular explanation or some guidance, yet those details may not be entirely reflected in the official meeting minutes. Similarly, verbal statements can be interpreted differently after the fact.
When only the tax office retains the recording, the same party that exercises supervisory authority also controls the primary documentary evidence of the meeting. Taxpayers, meanwhile, must rely solely on the official minutes or other written records prepared during the process.
Meeting minutes undoubtedly remain an important part of administrative proceedings. However, written records do not always capture the full context of a conversation, including follow-up questions and spontaneous exchanges that may prove significant later. For this reason, procedural fairness deserves careful consideration.
Potential Legal Concerns
The restriction on taxpayer recordings has also prompted questions because it may be associated with criminal provisions under Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions (Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik/ITE) Law.
Article 32 of the ITE Law prohibits certain unauthorized acts involving another person’s electronic information or electronic documents, while Article 48 sets out the corresponding penalties.
Under Article 32(1), "Any person who intentionally and without right or unlawfully alters, adds to, reduces, transmits, damages, deletes, moves, or conceals Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents belonging to another person or the public."
Article 32(2) reads, "Any person who intentionally and without right or unlawfully transfers or moves Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents to an unauthorized Electronic System."
Under SE-8/PJ/2026, the tax office is the only party authorized to make recordings during an SP2DK explanation session. Taxpayers, their representatives, authorized proxies, and employees are expressly prohibited from creating any form of documentation during the meeting.
The potential penalties under the ITE Law are severe. Article 48(1) provides for a maximum prison sentence of eight years and/or a fine of up to IDR 2 billion for violations of Article 32(1), while Article 48(2) carries a maximum prison sentence of nine years and/or a fine of up to IDR 3 billion for violations of Article 32(2).
That said, criminal provisions should be applied cautiously. Not every recording can automatically be equated with theft or misuse of electronic information. A taxpayer who records a meeting merely for internal documentation purposes does not necessarily intend to distribute confidential information or cause harm to another party.
Many businesses routinely record meetings to ensure important information is not overlooked, facilitate the preparation of follow-up documents, or maintain internal records. Any assessment of potential criminal liability should therefore consider the individual’s conduct, intent, context, and the actual consequences of the recording.
Shielding Behind Confidentiality
Protecting the confidentiality of taxpayer information is a legitimate reason to impose restrictions on recording. Tax secrecy is a fundamental principle, as sensitive taxpayer information should not be disclosed indiscriminately.
However, the application of that principle should also take into account the nature of the information being discussed. In an SP2DK meeting, the discussion generally concerns the taxpayer’s own transactions and tax data. If a taxpayer retains a recording simply for internal purposes, that should not automatically be viewed as equivalent to disclosing another person’s confidential tax information.
There are concerns regarding third-party information, but those risks can often be managed through more proportionate safeguards, such as limiting access to recordings, redacting third-party information, or regulating the use of recordings through confidentiality agreements.
A blanket prohibition on taxpayer recordings may be administratively straightforward, but it is not necessarily the most balanced solution.
Toward a More Balanced Approach
If the tax office is required to record SP2DK meetings, they could grant taxpayers a copy through a protected system. This would allow the tax authority to retain its official archive while ensuring taxpayers also have a complete record of proceedings that directly affect them.
Another option would be to permit taxpayers to make recordings subject to clear limitations. Recordings could be used exclusively for internal documentation, administrative purposes, or the protection of legal rights, while any public dissemination through social media or other unauthorized channels would remain prohibited.
The parties could also sign confidentiality undertakings before the meeting begins. Such an approach would preserve the confidentiality of tax information without depriving taxpayers of their rights to document proceedings.
Voluntary tax compliance depends not only on legal authority and enforcement but also on trust. Taxpayers are more likely to accept supervisory procedures when they perceive them as fair. For that reason, the recording policy for SP2DK proceedings deserves ongoing evaluation to guarantee that the protection of confidential information is balanced with procedural fairness and taxpayers' rights.
Also Read:
PFII Bill Passed, Government Prepares Tax Incentives to Attract Foreign Investment
Purbaya Affirms No Rate Hikes, Focus on Tax Base Expansion
Article 26 Withholding Tax on Foreign Taxpayers