<![CDATA[Regulatory inconsistencies in tax, bankruptcy, and labor law regarding debt repayment priority highlight the importance of Supreme Court Decisions No. 39 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2025 and No. 40 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2025. These rulings confirm that suspension of the statute of limitations on tax collection also suspends the state’s preferential right, ensuring the state remains a priority creditor if the suspension is validly proven. This study analyzes the Court’s reasoning and its implications for the state’s position in bankruptcy liquidation. Using normative legal research with statute and case approaches, the findings show a departure from Supreme Court Decision No. 45 PK/Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2016, which treated tax claims as concurrent creditors due to procedural delay. The 2025 decisions strengthen protection of state revenue while respecting workers’ wage priority under Constitutional Court Decision No. 67/PUU-XI/2013. Implications include maintaining the state’s preferential status, reinforcing tax claims in the creditor hierarchy, affirming procedural duties of the Directorate General of Taxes, increasing curators’ prudence, and creating both certainty and risk for other creditors. Clear technical parameters on proof of suspension, claim deadlines, and verification procedures are essential to ensure consistent application in bankruptcy cases]]>
Copyrights © 2026
