Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 28 Download : 19

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to clarify conceptual ambiguities in the discourse on digital taxation by distinguishing between Coretax-T, as a digital tax administration system, and Coretax-N, as a normative concept of digital tax legitimacy.


Research Method: The study employs a conceptual analysis approach using conceptual mapping, conceptual decomposition, internal consistency testing, and case application to tax policy documents, political philosophy literature, and studies on digital governance.


Results and Discussion: The findings indicate that using the term “Coretax” in two senses leads to inconsistencies in arguments surrounding the evaluation of digital taxation. The Lockean tradition offers the most consistent analytical framework, whereas the Rawlsian and utilitarian approaches still face conflicts of principle and methodological issues.


Implications: An evaluation of digital taxation should not be based solely on administrative efficiency, but must also take into account procedural legitimacy, distributive justice, and access to digital justice.


Originality: The novelty of this research lies in the conceptual distinction between Coretax-T and Coretax-N as the foundation for a philosophical evaluation of digital taxation.

Keywords

coretax tax philosophy digital tax governance distributive justice conceptual analysis

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Chelsya, C., Sastrasasmita, E., Habbe, A. H., & Pagalung, G. (2026). Conceptual Ambiguities in Coretax: A Philosophical Examination of Legitimacy, Efficiency, and Justice in Digital Tax Administration. Advances in Taxation Research, 4(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.60079/atr.v4i2.845
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adams, I., & Dyson, R. W. (2007). Fifty Major Political Thinkers 2nd ed. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  2. Bentham, J. (1843). The works of Jeremy Bentham (J. Bowring, Ed.). William Tait.
  3. Cindy, N., & Chelsya (2024). Persepsi Mahasiswa terhadap Penerapan Core Tax Administration System (CTAS) di Indonesia. AMKOP: Economics and Digital Business Review, 5(2), 1029–1040. https://doi.org/10.37531/ecotal.v5i2.1473
  4. Gallie, W.B. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.
  5. Hopwood, A. G., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Korat, C., & Munandar, A. (2025). Penerapan Core Tax Administration System (CTAS): Langkah Meningkatkan Kepatuhan Perpajakan di Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Politala, 8(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.34128/jra.v8i1.453
  7. Locke, J. (1689). Two Treaties of Government. London: G. Routledge and Sons.
  8. Mandasari, N. (2024). The Effect of Taxation Digitalization (Electronic System) on Increasing Individual Taxpayer Compliance. Advances in Taxation Research, 2(3), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.60079/atr.v2i3.62
  9. Mill, J. S. (1885). Principles of political economy. D. Appleton.
  10. Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Murphy, L., & Nagel, T. (2002). The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice. Oxford University Press.
  12. Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  13. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. US: Basic Books.
  14. Nurwanah, A. (2025). Digital Taxes on Global Tech Companies and Interstate Tensions in the Digital Economy. Advances in Taxation Research, 3(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.60079/atr.v3i1.422
  15. Pratiwi, E., Negoro, T., & Haykal, H. (2022). Teori Utilitarianisme Jeremy Bentham: Tujuan Hukum atau Metode Pengujian Produk Hukum? Jurnal Konstitusi, 19(2), 269–293. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1922
  16. Purnamasari, E. D. A., Mboeik, P. M. R., Setiawan, A. L., Stefany, K., Manuputty, S. A. A., Indriani, N. A., ... & Kuncoro, B. S. (2025). Digital Tax System: Peluang, Tantangan, dan Implementasi di Indonesia. SIEGA Publisher.
  17. Purnamasari, T. (2024). Digital Taxes and the Global Economy: A Multinational Literature Perspective. Advances in Taxation Research, 2(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.60079/atr.v2i1.220
  18. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice (revised edition). US: Harvard University Press.
  19. Rousseau, J.J. (1762). Du Contrat Social ou Essai sur la forme de la Republique. Arvensa editions.
  20. Saputra, T. E., & Prabowo, R. E. (2025). Comparative Analysis of Public Perceptions of Tax Justice and Public Responses to Changes in the Tax System. Advances in Taxation Research, 3(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.60079/atr.v3i1.424
  21. Strawson, P.F. (1992). Analysis and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
  22. Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 53(1), 112–134.