Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas praktik Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR dalam penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Indonesia dan hambatannya Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan metode deskriptif Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat praktik ADR dalam penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Indonesia berupa Arbitrase dalam kerangka MAP dalam P3B Indonesia ndash Meksiko dan Pembahasan dengan Tim Quality Assurance Pemeriksaan Tim QAP Hambatan dalam praktik arbitrase yaitu sifatnya yang optional posisinya dalam MAP biaya yang timbul dan tidak adanya ketentuan lebih lanjut Hambatan dalam pembahasan dengan Tim QAP yaitu konflik peran yang mempengaruhi impartiality dan neutrality Hasil penelitian menyarankan adanya ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai arbitrase penambahan klausul arbitrase dalam P3B Indonesia dengan negara lainnya pergantian sumber daya Tim QAP perubahan dalam Undang undang KUP serta pengadopsian Accelerated Issue Resolution AIR dan Dispute Resolution Panel DRP sebagai ADR di Indonesia

---

This study discusses practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR and its issues in Indonesia rsquo s tax dispute resolution system The approach used is qualitative decsriptive method The result indicates arbitration in MAP framework contained in Indonesia ndash Mexico Tax Treaty and the Discussion with Examination Quality Assurance Team QAP Team as pratice of ADR in Indonesia Issues relating arbitration are its optional nature its position in MAP costs arised and lack of further regulation Issue in QAP Team is its lack of impartiality and neutrality The researcher suggests that further regulation of arbitration should be made additional arbitration clause in other Indonesia Tax Treaties is needed change of QAP Team should be considered change in General Tax Provision and Procedure Law should be made and AIR and DRP should be adopted as ADR in Indonesia "

"[ABSTRAKPenelitian ini membahas proses penyelesaian sengketa tahapan Pemilihan Umum yang terpengaruh oleh Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 41 PHPU D VI 2008 yang berimplikasi dikesampingkannya aspek kepastian hukum dan kemanfaatan karena terdapat beberapa lembaga negara yang memiliki kewenangan untuk menangani sengketa dalam tahapan Pemilu seperti Bawaslu DKPP Peradilan Umum Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara Mahkamah Agung serta Mahkamah Konstitusi Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan menghasilkan penelitian deskriptif analitis Hasil penelitian menyarankan pembentuk undang undang membuat suatu peraturan perundang undangan mengenai proses penyelesaian sengketa Pemilu yang mengharmonisasi kewenangan lembaga lembaga yang memiliki kewenangan untuk menangani sengketa dalam tahapan Pemilu dengan memberikan jangka waktu dalam penyelesaiannya serta menjadikan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai peradilan Pemilu terakhir dimana tidak ada upaya hukum maupun badan peradilan lain yang menangani perkara Pemilu setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi kecuali perkara yang berkaitan dengan pelanggaran etik maupun tindak pidana.

---

ABSTRACTThe focus of this study is the dispute resolution of stages of general election is affected by Constitutional Court Judgment No 41 PHPU D VI 2008 which has implication for ruled out legal certainty and expediency principle because there are state agencies what have the authority to adjudicate for dispute resolution of stages of general election like election supervisory board honorary of election executor board criminal court administrative court supreme court and constitutional court This study is a qualitative research for generate descriptive analytical The researcher suggest that the legislator form a regulation about dispute resolution general election process which harmonization an authority of state agencies which have an authority for adjudicate for dispute resolution of general election and the regulation gives a period of time for the resolution and constitutional court be a last court of general election which there is no other remedy or other bodies to adjudicate after constitutional court judgment except violations of ethics or criminal of general election. , The focus of this study is the dispute resolution of stages of general election is affected by Constitutional Court Judgment No 41 PHPU D VI 2008 which has implication for ruled out legal certainty and expediency principle because there are state agencies what have the authority to adjudicate for dispute resolution of stages of general election like election supervisory board honorary of election executor board criminal court administrative court supreme court and constitutional court This study is a qualitative research for generate descriptive analytical The researcher suggest that the legislator form a regulation about dispute resolution general election process which harmonization an authority of state agencies which have an authority for adjudicate for dispute resolution of general election and the regulation gives a period of time for the resolution and constitutional court be a last court of general election which there is no other remedy or other bodies to adjudicate after constitutional court judgment except violations of ethics or criminal of general election. ]"