<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the pattern of conflict or inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the determination of Article 26 Income Tax (PPh) rates for holders of Coal Mining Business Work Agreements (PKP2B). The main focus of this study is to collect forms of disparity in legal considerations (decision ratios) of Supreme Court judges in deciding Judicial Review (PK) cases that are released on conflicts of contract law regimes, domestic tax law, and international law. The research method used is normative legal research (normative juridical) using a statutory regulatory approach (statutory approach), a case approach (case approach), a contextual approach (conceptual approach), and a comparative approach (comparative approach). Data were collected through a literature review method to trace primary legal materials in the form of court decisions and laws, as well as secondary and tertiary legal materials, which were then analyzed qualitatively with deductive reasoning. The results of the study indicate that the pattern of jurisprudential disparity is divided into two opposing tendencies: first, a contractual approach that prioritizes the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali to protect fiscal stabilization clauses in PKP2B; and second, a public law approach based on the principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori which emphasizes that tax law is coercive. This disparity is further complicated by considerations based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda which prioritizes the supremacy of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (P3B). This study concludes that the clash of legal paradigms, coupled with the less than optimal nomophilia function of the Supreme Court, has created legal activists who have the potential to undermine global investor confidence and prolong horizontal tax conflicts. Comprehensive harmonization of the intersection of norms governing this strategic sector is urgently needed.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
