The purpose of this study: 1) To analyze the state preferential rights arrangements for tax debt payment in the decision of Commercial Court. 2) To explore the basis consideration of judge to apply the state preferential rights for tax debt payment in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court Number 070 PK/PDT.SUS/2009. 3) To formulate legal reasoning of judge did not apply the state preferential rights for tax debts payment of in Supreme Court Decision Number 94 PK/Pdt.Sus/2011, the Supreme Court Decision Number 116 PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2013, the Supreme Court Decision Number 49 PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2014, the Supreme Court Decision Number 72 PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2015 and the Supreme Court Decision Decision Number 45 PK/ Pdt.Sus/Pailit/2016. This type of research is normative juridical with approaches such as : statute approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. Legal materials were analyzed using five theories, namely: law reform theory, taxation theory, legal protection theory, legal purposes theory, and ratio decidendi theory. The results of this study: (1) a) The unclear and incomplete regarding the " state position as preferred creditor" in the Explanation part, allow many interpretations by judge. b) These interpretation of the state preferential rights are harming, which can not be applied when faced with another debts in bankruptcy procedures. (2) a) the state has preferential right to charge tax on goods belonging to the taxpayer. b) KPP which represents a state that can not be placed as a creditor under Article 1, paragraph 2, 3, 6 and 11 of KPKPU Act. (3) a) the judge acknowledged the state preferential rights, but judge also must comply with the principles of judiciary implementation. b) in carrying out its authority, KPP also found guilty of negligence: KPP can not prove that the assets were claimed is non boedel / the bankruptcy assets; KPP filed billing to the curator has elapsed period of 2 years from insolvency time; KPP filed billing only be estimated based on assumptions prior to the taxpayer declared bankrupt; The result of the bankruptcy estate is not sufficient for clearance, so that the division is according the principles of fairness and balance; Procedure renvoi filed by KPP does not correspond to the correct phases.