Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Kebijakan perpajakan sebagai unsur penting dari kebijakan publik pemerintah telah berkontribusi lebih dari 60 % penerimaan negara berasal dari penerimaan pajak. Adanya kebijakan perpajakan yang berbeda terhadap unsur biaya pendanaan (cost of fund) atas bunga pinjaman diperlakukan sebagai deductible expenses sedangkan atas dividen sebagai cost of equity tidak diperkenankan sebagai pengurang pendapatan (non deductible expenses). Pemerintah juga mengenakan pajak dividen berganda. Secara teoritis, akibat perbedaan perlakuan tersebut terdapat kecenderungan perusahaan untuk memperbesar pinjaman dibanding menggunakan dana internal sendiri, maka beban pajak berkurang. Disisi lain, bila perusahaan dibiayai pinjaman bila tidak dilakukan dengan hati-hati dapat membawa kesulitan akibat adanya beban bunga. Berkenaan dengan fenomena tersebut peneliti tertarik untuk menjawab pertanyaan: pertama, apakah terdapat konsistensi perlakuan perpajakan atas bunga dan dividen, kedua, bagaimanakah pilihan keputusan pendanaan perusahaan publik yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia: apakah lebih banyak menggunakan pinjaman (static trade off theory) atau menggunakan dana internal perusahaan (pecking order theory), dan ketiga bagaimanakah implikasi perpajakan yang timbul akibat pilihan keputusan pendanaan perusahaan yang terdaftar di BEI. Untuk menjawab pertanyaan penelitian, peneliti menggunakan metode penelitian gabungan kuantitatif dan kualitatif dengan objek penelitian pada perusahaan publik yang terdaftar di BEI Tahun 2000 ? 2007 berjumlah 109 perusahaan publik. Peneliti menganalisis konsistensi perlakuan perpajakan secara bertahap dari waktu ke waktu, menguji teori yang berlaku dalam pilihan keputusan pendanaan serta implikasi perpajakan sebagai akibat pilihan keputusan pendanaan.Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan: pertama, perlakuan bunga pinjaman secara konsisten dianggap sebagai beban yang dapat mengurangi biaya walaupun secara implisit untuk periode 1925-1983. Bunga pinjaman secara eksplisit disebutkan sebagai salah satu unsur biaya yang dapat dikurangkan dalam menghitung penghasilan kena pajak untuk periode 1984-sekarang. Pembagian laba berbentuk dividen yang dilakukan, oleh setiap perusahaan baik yang terdaftar di bursa atau tidak, bukan merupakan biaya. Ketentuan tersebut pengaturannya secara implisit tertuang dalam UU Pajak dari 1925-1983. Perundang-undangan perpajakan telah secara jelas dan eksplisit menyebutkan bahwa dividen yang dibayarkan oleh perusahaan bukan biaya yang dapat mengurangi penghasilan bruto (non deductible expenses) untuk periode 1983-sekarang.Kedua, perusahaan publik di Indonesia dalam pilihan keputusan pendanaanya cenderung mengikuti pecking order theory daripada static trade off theory, artinya lebih banyak menggunakan dana internal perusahaan dalam keputusan pendanaannya. Hasil seluruh periode untuk seluruh sektor yang terdapat dalam klasifikasi BEI diuji kembali pada masing-masing sektor dengan hasil mengkonfirmasi temuan utama: pilihan keputusan pendanaan perusahaan cenderung menggunakan dana internal sebelum sumber pendanaan lainnya. Dengan demikian, tidak ada kecenderungan memperbesar pinjaman yang dapat mengurangi beban pajak. Oleh karena itu, kebijakan pemerintah untuk menunda kebijakan Debt Equity Ratio pada Tahun 2000 - sekarang bagi perusahaan yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia menjadi sangat relevan karena kecenderungan memperbesar pinjaman pinjaman pada perusahaan publik tidak terbukti. Ketiga, implikasi kebijakan perpajakan atas cost of capital, pemerintahan menganut classical system yang menganggap dividen yang dibayarkan terkena pemotongan pajak oleh pihak pembayar dan tetap akan diperhitungkan kembali sebagai penghasilan ditingkat pemegang saham dengan memperlakukan pemotongan pajak pihak pembayar sebagai kredit pajak.

---

The tax policy had been one of the most important issues which government of Indonesia had designed and implemented, due to its major contribution of tax revenue to our national account approximately sixty percent of total government budget. Indonesia had performed two different approach to cost of fund and cost of equity. The tax discrimination was occurred in the term of deductibility of interest and non deductibility of dividend that was acknowledged as Tax Discrimination Treatment Between Interest and Dividend. Beside tax discrimination, Indonesia also implemented Double Taxation that would burden the tax payer twice. The double taxation of dividend relied on the classical system of tax regime that separate legal entity from the owner of the firm and the corporation as different business entity. Nevertheless, in theory tax discrimination would forced companies to increase their debt rather than their own equities and would be outcome in decreasing tax expenses. On the other side, if the company used more loan to finance its business as well as company?s expansion without prudency and carefulness, the cost of financial distress might be increased because it should pay higher interest.In order to observed two factual research problems, the researcher was interested: firstly to analyse tax treatment on interest and dividend payment had been consistent or inconsistent throughout times. Secondly, the research aim is to observed financing decision of public listed companies at Indonesia Stock Exchange: using more loan (follow the static trade off theory) or using more company internal fund (follow the pecking order theory) and thirdly, the researcher was interested to describe tax implication that was implied after the companies performed their finance decision specially for the Indonesian public listed companies. To answer the three research questions, the researcher plan to conduct mixed approach research design. The research object was public listed companies at Indonesian Stock Exchange for the period of 2000-2007 with total sample of 109 companies. The researcher analyzed tax treatment consistency throughout times, to examined the theory of financing decision and to describe tax implication which related to public companies financing decision. The research main findings were as follows: firstly, tax treatment on interest was consistent categorized as expenses to decrease tax burden implicit for the period of 1925-1983. Interest was stated as one of deductible tax expense for calculation of taxable income for the period of 1984 up to now. The income distribution of dividend from public listed or private company could not stated as expenses for calculation tax payment of corporate income tax for the period of 1925-1983. the regulation of dividend payment was stated implicit in Indonesian Tax Law. Those tax laws had explicit and was stated obvious dividend payment of corporation was not expenses which decreased company gross income (non deductible expense) for the period of 1983 up to now.Secondly, the public listed company in Indonesia was followed pecking order theory rather than trade off theory that means the company prefers to use internal fund in decide financing decision. The result of all years period was reexamined by sectoral approach and the result was confirm on main findings, company?s financing decision follows the pecking order prediction: prefer to use internal fund (retained earning) before other external fund (loan, debt/obligation, or equity/stock). Therefore, there was no tendency company to reduce taxable expenses. Thus, the government policy to postponed Debt to Equity Ratio policy in 2000 up to now for the public listed companies was relevant due to those companies tendency of funding more their capital with more loan was irrelevant (doubtful). Thirdly, tax implication on the cost of capital, government tax regimes emphasize classical system (no integration) which have assumed dividend payment as a subject of taxation and would be recalculate as income to the shareholders with certain tax treatment from tax payer which is tax credit."

"Since economics crisis that occurred ten years ago has shown positive growth, the investment climate that has been going on in Indonesia is not yet stable consistently. In order to create conducive investment climate the government made the Law of Income Tax No. 17 in 2000 with reduced income tax. Even though the tax is not always being the concerning factor in making a funding decision in a company, however the tax is inevitable.Modigliani and Miller (1963) stated with the tax, a company which adding the debt in its capital structure will maximize its firm value. The advantage of the tax arises as a result of paying the interest. From dividend policy point, the reduced income tax increases the proportion to earnings after tax which is distributed to the shareholder.The purpose of the research is to find the changing affect of corporate income tax rate the company dividend policy and capital structure. This research uses methodology of panel data. The sample characteristic of the research is companies which are registered in Indonesia Stock Exchange and distributed the cash dividend from 1998 to 2005. The result was 23 companies had been chosen from 388 population as research sample.The result has indicated that reduced corporate income tax affects significantly positive to dividend policy but negative to capital structure. When the corporate income tax decreases the total dividend ratio on the earnings after tax increase but the usage level of debt based on the value of the company book equity decrease. The factors which affecting the debt usage level based on the book value equity are assets, non debt tax shield, profibility, and dividend payout ratio in two years. Moreover, the factors which affecting the dividend total ratio on the earnings after tax are non debt tax shield, dividend and dividend payout ratio in one year."

"Penelitian ini memiliki tujuan untuk menganalisis tinjauan dan implikasi penetapan KIKEBA sebagai Subjek Pajak Badan di Indonesia, implementasi kebijakan pajak atas transaksi KIK-EBA di Indonesia, serta kebijakan pajak atas transaksi Efek Beragun Aset di negara India, Argentina, China, Belgia, dan Singapura dan alternatif kebijakan bagi Indonesia. Analisis dilakukan dengan menggunakan teori Implementasi Kebijakan, Kebijakan Pajak, Pajak Penghasilan, Bunga, Marjin, Sistem Pemungutan Pajak, Sekuritisasi Aset, dan KIK-EBA. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kualitatif deskriptif dengan melakukan wawancara mendalam. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa penetapan KIK-EBA sebagai Subjek Pajak Badan menyebabkan implikasi kewajiban perpajakan, termasuk Pajak Penghasilan dan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai. Selain itu, pemotongan PPh Pasal 23 atas marjin yang diterima oleh KIK-EBA dari Originator menyebabkan lebih bayar terus-menerus yang berdampak pada terganggunya likuiditas KIK-EBA, khususnya kepada Investor. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan alternatif kebijakan yang dapat memberikan kemudahan perpajakan bagi KIK-EBA, entah dalam bentuk insentif sebagaimana diadopsi dari kebijakan di Argentina, China, dan Belgia atau paket kebijakan khusus seperti kebijakan VCC yang diterapkan di Singapura.

---

This study aims to analyze the review of the establishment of KIK-EBA as a corporate taxpayer in Indonesia and its implications, the implementation of tax policies on CICABS transactions in Indonesia, and the tax policies on Asset Backed Securities transactions in other countries also the alternative policies for Indonesia. The analysis was carried out using the theory of Policy Implementation, Tax Policy, Income Tax, Interest, Margins, Tax Collection System, Asset Securitization, and CIC-ABS. The method used in this research is descriptive qualitative by conducting in-depth interviews. The results of this study indicate that the establishment of CIC-ABS as a corporate taxation has implications for taxation obligations, including income tax and value added tax. In addition, withholding income tax Article 23 on margins received by CIC-ABS from the Originator causes continuous overpayment which affects the disruption of CIC-ABS liquidity, especially to the Investors. Therefore, alternative policies are needed that can provide taxation facilities for CIC-ABS, whether in the form of incentives as adopted from policies in Argentina, China, and Belgium or other policy packages like VCC policy which implemented in Singapore."

"Penelitian ini menganalisis implementasi kebijakan earmarked tax atas Pajak Kendaraan Bermotor di Provinsi Banten. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Hasil penelitian ini adalah secara kebijakan, peraturan earmarked tax tidak selaras dengan kebijakan pengelolaan keuangan daerah. Selain itu, peraturan earmarked tax juga tidak lengkap dalam mengatur rincian komponen belanja sehingga tidak bisa dibuktikan bahwa implementasi earmarked tax PKB berjalan sesuai aturan dan kebijakan. Earmarked tax terasa tidak membawa pengaruh berarti terhadapp pengkomposisian anggaran SKPD di Provinsi Banten. Dalam implementasinya, stakeholders belum siap menerapkan kebijakan earmarked tax dikarenakan birokrasi pemerintah daerah yang kompleks dalam penyusunan anggaran dan kurang maksimalnya kerjasama antara SKPD dengan instansi terkait serta masyarakat.

---

This study analyzes the implementation of earmarked tax policy over the Vehicle Tax in Banten. A qualitative method is used with a descriptive design. The results of this study suggest that in policy, the earmarked tax is not in tune with the regional financial management regulations. In addition, the policy does not clearly state the details of expenditure components. It cannot be proven that the implementation of the earmarked tax policy over the Vehicle Tax goes according to the rules and regulations. In other words, earmarked tax does not bring a significant effect to the Satuan Kerja Perangkat Daerah (SKPD) budget composition in Banten. In practice, the stakeholders are not ready to implement the earmarked tax due to the complex bureaucracy of the local government in preparing the budget and the ineffective cooperation between SKPD, the relevant agencies, and the society."

"Pada 2021, pemerintah Indonesia menetapkan Undang Undang Harmonisasi Peraturan Perpajakan (HPP) yang mengatur beberapa perubahan kebijakan dalam bidang perpajakan, salah satunya kebijakan pajak atas natura. Natura yang kini dipotong oleh Pajak Penghasilan (PPh), dapat menimbulkan kompleksitas antara pemotongan PPN terhadap natura yang digunakan sebagai pemakaian sendiri dan pemberian cuma-cuma. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis perubahan kebijakan pajak atas natura setelah diberlakukannya UU HPP, khususnya dampaknya terhadap pemakaian sendiri dan pemberian cuma-cuma dari natura yang sudah menjadi objek PPN. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data berupa studi lapangan melalui wawancara mendalam dan studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perubahan kebijakan ini meningkatkan beban administrasi perusahaan, risiko perpindahan lapisan tarif pajak bagi karyawan, serta kompleksitas dalam menentukan objek pajak yang tepat antara natura, pemakaian sendiri, dan pemberian cuma-cuma. Penelitian ini memberikan rekomendasi kepada pemerintah agar dapat menekankan sosialisasi dan edukasi berkelanjutan kepada Wajib Pajak untuk meminimalkan kesalahan dalam pelaksanaan peraturan baru. Perusahaan juga diharapkan proaktif dalam memantau informasi perpajakan terbaru dan menjaga komunikasi dengan otoritas pajak guna memastikan kepatuhan dan kelancaran implementasi kebijakan baru ini.

---

In 2021, the Indonesian government enacted the Harmonization of Tax Regulations Law (HPP Law), which introduced several policy changes in taxation, including the taxation of benefits in kind. Benefits in kind, now subject to Income Tax (PPh), may lead to complexity regarding the application of VAT on benefits in kind used for personal consumption and gratuitous gifts. This study aims to analyze the changes in taxation policy on benefits in kind following the implementation of the HPP Law, particularly its impact on personal use and gratuitous gifts of benefits in kind already subject to VAT. This research employs a qualitative approach, collecting data through field studies involving in-depth interviews and literature reviews. The findings indicate that the policy change increases administrative burdens for companies, risks of tax bracket shifts for employees, and complexities in determining the correct tax objects among benefits in kind, personal use, and gratuitous gifts. The study recommends that the government emphasize continuous socialization and education for taxpayers to minimize errors in implementing the new regulations. Companies are also encouraged to proactively monitor the latest tax information and maintain communication with tax authorities to ensure compliance and smooth implementation of the new policy."