Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Upaya hukum dalam Sengketa Pajak dengan Peninjauan Kembali adalah merupakan hak yang diberikan oleh peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang perpajakan apabila kemudian salah satu pihak tidak puas terhadap putusan Pengadilan Pajak terhadap suatu Sengketa Pajak. Terhadap putusan Pengadilan Pajak yang memenangkan Banding Wajib Pajak dan membebankan kewajiban Imbalan Bunga sebesar 2% (dua persen) kepada Fiskus diatur dalam Pasal 27A ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Fiskus dapat mengajukan upaya hukum Peninjauan Kembali, sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 27 Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007. Namun dalam Kententuan Pasal 43 ayat (6) huruf b dan huruf c Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 74 Tahun 2011 tentang Tata Cara Pelaksanaan Hak dan Pemenuhan Kewajiban Perpajakan mengamanatkan bahwa dalam hal Wajib Pajak mengajukan permohonan Banding, imbalan bunga diberikan apabila terhadap Putusan Banding tidak diajukan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali ke Mahkamah Agung, dan dalam hal Putusan Banding diajukan permohonan Peninjauan Kembali, imbalan bunga diberikan apabila Putusan Peninjauan Kembali telah diterima oleh Direktur Jenderal Pajak dari Mahkamah Agung. Maka apabila Pemerintah berlindung pada ketentuan Pasal 43 ayat (6) huruf b dan huruf c Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 74 Tahun 2011 akan mempunyai akibat hukum yakni tertundanya pembayaran imbalan bunga yang merupakan amanat putusan Pengadilan Pajak, penundaan tersebut adalah bertentangan dengan ilmu hukum terkait dengan putusan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap sebagaimana diamanatkan Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak Pasal 33 ayat (1) Pasal 86, Pasal 77 ayat (1) dan Pasal 89 ayat (2) bahwa Putusan Pengadilan Pajak langsung dapat dilaksanakan dengan tidak memerlukan lagi keputusan pejabat yang berwenang dan Putusan Pengadilan Pajak merupakan putusan akhir dan mempunyai kekuatan hukum yang tetap serta Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali tidak menangguhkan atau menghentikan pelaksanaan Putusan Pengadilan Pajak. Dari uraian d atas, bahwa imbalan bunga yang dibebankan kepada Fiskus terhadap amanat putusan Pengadilan Pajak yang memenangkan Banding Wajib Pajak yang merupakan putusan tingkat pertama dan terakhir dapat menimbulkan multi tafsir dalam hal penyelesaian kewajiban perpajakan dan dapat pula menimbulkan ketidakpastian penerapan hukum dalam bidang perpajakan serta dapat merugikan Wajib Pajak.

---

Remedies in Tax Dispute with judicial review is a right granted by legislation in the field of taxation if the later one is not satisfied with the decision of the Tax Court for a Tax Dispute. The decision of the Appeal Tax Court that taxpayer wins and imposes a duty of 2% interest expense (two percent) to the tax authorities provided for in Article 27A paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 Year 2007 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures. Tax authorities may file judicial review remedies, as provided for in Article 27 of Law No. 28 of 2007. But in these Terms of Article 43 paragraph (6) letter b and c of Government Regulation Number 74 Year 2011 Concerning the Implementation of the Rights and Obligations Tax Compliance, which mandates that the Taxpayer Appeals to apply, if the interest expense given to the Appeal Decision has not been filed Revision Petition to the Supreme Court, and Appeal Decision in the case of judicial review petition filed, if the exchange rate ruling granted judicial review upon receipt by the Director General of Taxes of the Supreme Court. when the Government took refuge to the provisions of Article 43 paragraph (6) letter b and c of Government Regulation Number 74 Year 2011 has caused the delay in payment of interest expense in return is a mandate Tax Court's decision, the delay is contrary to the law relating to the decision of legally binding as stated in law No. 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court, Article 33 paragraph (1), Article 86, Article 77 paragraph (1) and Article 89 paragraph (2) that the Tax Court decision can be implemented immediately with no need for the competent authority's decision and the Tax Court Decision final decision and have the force of the permanent and judicial review application does not suspend or stop the implementation of the Tax Court Decision. From the description above, that the interest expense charged to the tax authorities against the decision of the Tax Court's mandate that won the Taxpayer Appeals is the first and final decision can lead to multiple interpretations in terms of settlement of tax liabilities and may also cause uncertainty in the application of taxation law and can detrimental to the taxpayer."

"Pajak bersifat memaksa dan dapat dipaksakan. Disamping kewajiban, Wajib Pajak juga diberikan hak-hak. Wajib Pajak mempunyai hak yang mendasar yaitu mengajukan Keberatan, Banding dan Gugatan. Gugatan diatur dalam pasal 23 Undang-Undang tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Untuk petunjuk pelaksanaan diatur dalam Pasal 37 Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 74 tahun 2011. Hal-hal yang dapat diajukan sebagai Gugatan diatur pada pasal 23 Undang- Undang tentang Ketentuan Umum Perpajakan yang memberikan secara luas kepada Wajib Pajak mengenai hal-hal yang dapat diajukan Gugatan. Sementara dalam PP No. 74 tahun 2011 sebagai Petunjuk Pelaksanaan dari Undang-Undang KUP tersebut dalam Pasal 37 menyebutkan tentang Gugatan yang tidak dapat diajukan atau adanya pembatasan mengenai hal-hal yang bisa diajukan Gugatan. Dengan demikian Undang-Undang sendiri memberikan rumusan yang lebih luas mengenai apa saja yang diajukan sebagai gugatan, tetapi di Peraturan Pemerintah dibatasi hal-hal yang tidak bisa diajukan sebagai Gugatan.

---

Taxation is coercive and can be enforced. Besides liability, the taxpayer is also granted rights. Taxpayers have a right fundamental objection is filed, Appeal and Lawsuit. The lawsuit provided for in article 23 of the Law on General Provisions and Tax Procedures. For guidelines set out in Article 37 of Government Regulation No. 74 of 2011. The things that can be submitted as stipulated in Article 23, Claims Act on General Rules of Taxation which gives broadly to taxpayers on matters that may be filed lawsuit. While the PP. 74 in 2011 as the directive implementation in Article 37 mentions the lawsuit can not be filed or the restriction of the things that can be filed lawsuit. Thus the Law itself provides a broadly defined as to what is proposed as a lawsuit, but in limited government regulation of things that can not be filed as a lawsuit. "

"Tesis ini membahas tentang asas keadilan dan kepastian hukum pada Pasal 29 Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) No. 74 Tahun 2011 dilihat dari Pasal 13A Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UUKUP). Tetapi Pasal 29 PP melarang untuk melakukan permohonan pengajuan keberatan. Permasalahan yang timbul yaitu pelarangan permohonan upaya hukum keberatan tersebut ternyata bertentangan dengan UUKUP dan ternyata PP tersebut juga terindikasi tidak memenuhi ketentuan pada UU Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 UU Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan (UUPPP). Oleh Karena latar belakang tersebut, maka pokok permasalahan tesis ini adalah apakah Pasal tersebut telah sesuai dengan asas keadilan dan kepastian hukum dalam perpajakan dan bagaimana dengan upaya hukumnya terhadap Wajib Pajak itu sendiri. Permasalahan tersebut dibahas dengan menggunakan tipologi penelitian deskriptif-perspektif, dengan menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan dan ditambah dengan informasi dari narasumber yang terkait, sehingga menghasilkan kesimpulan yaitu ternyata Pasal 29 PP No.74 Tahun 2011 tesebut tidak mencerminkan asas keadilan dan asas kepastian hukum bagi Wajib Pajak (WP), dan upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan adalah dengan 2 cara yaitu cara pertama dengan mengedepankan system case by case yang kedua yaitu dengan langsung mengajukan judicial review.

---

This thesis discusses about the principles of justice and the rule of law in Article 29 of Government Regulation No. 74 In 2011 seen from Article 13A of Law the General Provisions and Tax Procedures. But Article 29 of the Regulation prohibits the submission of objections to the petition. The problems that arise are banning the application for legal remedy of appeal was contrary to land it also indicated that Government Regulation does not meet the provisions of Act Regulation No. 12 In 2011 Act Establishment of Legislation. By because on this background, the subject matter of this thesis is whether the article has been in accordance with the principles of justice and the rule of law in taxation and how the legal efforts against taxpayers themselves. The problem is addressed by using descriptive research typology perspective, using research literature and coupled with information from relevant sources, resulting in a conclusion that turns Article 29 of Government Regulation No. 74 In 2011 proficiency level does not reflect the principles of justice and the principle of legal certainty for Taxpayers, and remedies that can be done in 2 ways is the first way to promote system case by case the second is to directly apply for judicial review."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai hak Wajib Pajak (WP) untuk mengajukan keberatan atas Surat Ketetapan yang diterbitkan DJP sesuai dengan Pasal 25 KUP. Tetapi ayat (7) UU KUP 16/2000 mengatakan, keberatan tidak menghentikan proses penagihan. Persoalan timbul ketika sedang dalam proses keberatan, kemudian ditagih secara paksa, barang-barang milik WP disita, pemblokiran rekening bank milik WP, pencegahan ke luar negeri, penyanderaan dan pelelangan atas barang yang telah disita sebelumnya, ternyata kemudian dalam proses keberatan atau banding WP dinyatakan benar. Oleh karena latar belakang tersebut, maka pokok permasalahan tesis ini adalah apakah Pasal ini telah sesuai dengan asas keadilan dan telah memberikan asas kepastian hukum bagi WP. Permasalahan tersebut dibahas dengan menggunakan tipologi penelitan eksplanatoris, dengan menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan dan ditambah dengan informasi dari narasumber yang terkait, sehingga menghasilkan kesimpulan yaitu ternyata Pasal 25 ayat (7) UU No. 16 Tahun 2000 Tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (KUP) tidak mencerminkan asas keadilan dan asas kepastian hukum bagi WP.

---

This thesis discusses the right of Taxpayers (WP) to object to an assessment issued by the DJP in accordance with Article 25 KUP. But paragraph (7) of the Act KUP 16/2000 says, mind does not stop the billing process. Problems arise when the object is in the process, then billed by force, belongings confiscated, blocking of bank accounts, abroad prevention, hostage taking and auctions for goods that have been seized earlier, was then in the process of objection or appeal is substantiated Taxpayer. Because of this background, the subject matter of this thesis is whether this article in accordance with the principles of equality and the certainty has given hope to WP. The issues discussed by using the typology of explanatory research, using research literature and supplemented with information from relevant sources, resulting in a conclusion that turns Article 25 paragraph (7) of Law no. 16 Year 2000 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures (KUP) does not reflect the principles of equality and the principle of certainty for WP."

"Pengajuan Banding adalah salah satu hak yang diberikan oleh Undang-Undang Perpajakan kepada Wajib Pajak untuk menyelesaikan sengketa pajak yang dialaminya dengan Fiskus di hadapan badan peradilan pajak. Langkah ini merupakan upaya lanjutan yang dapat ditempuh Wajib Pajak apabila upaya penyelesaian sengketa pajaknya dengan Fiskus di tahap keberatan tidak dapat terselesaikan sesuai keinginan Wajib Pajak. Namun untuk dapat mengajukan Banding ke Pengadilan Pajak, ada beberapa ketentuan dan persyaratan formal yang telah ditetapkan oleh Undang-Undang yang harus dipenuhi Wajib Pajak. Diantaranya seperti yang diatur pada ketentuanPasal 36 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Pengadilan Pajak bahwa dalam hal Banding diajukanterhadap besarnya jumlah pajakyang terutang, banding hanya dapat dilakukan apabila jumlah yang terutang dimaksudtelah dibayar sebesar 50 % (lima puluh persen). Sejak 1 Januari 2008, dengan diberlakukan Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Perubahan Ketiga Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1983 Tentang ketentuan Umum Dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (KUP) terjadi perubahan terhadap penerapan ketentuan tersebut diatas, penerapan ketentuan Pasal 36 ayat (4) dikaitkan dengan Undang- Undang KUP baru menjadi kurang efektif. Masih dalam Undang-Undang yang sama juga diatur ketentuanPasal 45 yang mengatur tentang masa peralihan, yang mengatur bahwa terhadap pajak-pajak yang terutang pada suatu saat, untuk Masa Pajak,Bagian Tahun Pajak, atau tahun Pajak yang berakhir sebelum saat berlakunya Undang-Undang ini, tetap berlaku ketentuan peraturan perundangundangan perpajakan yang lama sampai dengan tanggal 31 Desember 1988. Dari uraian tersebut diatas menimbulkan pengertian yang multitafsir terhadap penyelesaian penetapan pajak-pajak terutang, dan berpotensi menyebabkan terjadinya kesalahan penerapan peraturan perpajakan oleh Fiskus, yang pada akhirnya akan merugikan Wajib Pajak.

---

The filing of Appeal is one of the rights provided by the Taxation Law to a Taxpayer to settle Taxation disputes between taxpayer and the tax authorities in a taxation court body. This step constitutes the firther effort that can be made by a Taxpayer in case the settlement of tax dispute with the tax authorities in the objection stage cannot be reached in accordance with the Taxpayer?swish. However in order to file an Appeal to the Taxation Court, there are several formal provisions and requirements that have been fixed by the Laws ang that have to be observed by the Taxpayer. These provisions are among others the provisions of article 36 paragraph (4) of theTax Proceeding Law which stipulates that in case an Appeal is filed against the amount of payable tax, the appeal can only be realized if 50 % (fifty percent) of the payable amount as mentioned has been paid. Since January 1, 2008, with the enactment of Law Number 28 of 2007 concerning the third Amendment on Law Number 6 of 1983 Concerning the General Provisions and Procedures of taxation (KUP), a change has been made on the application of the provision as mentined above, so that the application of the provision of article 30 paragraph (4) as related to the new KUP Law becomes ineffective. Still in connectionwith the same Law, a provision of Article 45 has also been promulgated, which regulates the period of transition, namely that the taxes that are payable at a certain moment, for the Tax Periode, part of tax year, or Tax Year that ends before this Law starts to be effective, will remain to be subyect to the provisions of the former taxation laws until December 31, 1988. The above description might result in an ambivalent understanding concerning the establishment of the amount of payable taxes, and will have the potential of creating inaccuracies in the implementation of taxation regulations by the tax authorities, which would eventually harm the Taxpayers."

"

Tesis ini membahas perpanjangan jangka waktu pelindungan Merek terdaftar yang tidak dilakukan pemeriksaan substantif sebagaimana permohonan pendaftaran merek. Permohonan pendaftaran merek ditolak jika Merek tersebut mempunyai persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya dengan Merek terkenal milik pihak lain untuk barang dan/atau jasa sejenis; atau Merek terkenal milik pihak lain untuk barang dan/atau jasa tidak sejenis yang memenuhi persyaratan tertentu. Permohonan pendaftaran merek juga dapat ditolak jika diajukan oleh Pemohon yang beriktikad tidak baik. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ditemukan ada merek-merek terdaftar di Indonesia telah diajukan permohonan perpanjangan jangka waktu pelindungan mereknya, dimana merek-merek tersebut mempunyai persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya dengan Merek terkenal milik pihak lain untuk barang dan/atau jasa sejenis; atau Merek terkenal milik pilik pihak untuk barang dan/atau jasa tidak sejenis yang memenuhi persyaratan tertentu, Pemilik Merek terkenal harus mengajukan gugatan pembatalan merek terdaftar terhadap merek-merek yang mempunyai persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya dengan Merek terkenal miliknya untuk barang dan/atau jasa sejenis; atau Merek terkenal miliknya untuk barang dan/atau jasa tidak sejenis yang memenuhi persyaratan tertentu. Kriteria penentuan Merek terkenal dilakukan dengan memperhatikan pengetahuan umum masyarakat mengenai merek tersebut di bidang usaha yang bersangkutan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa sebaiknya perpanjangan jangka waktu pelindungan Merek terdaftar diumumkan dalam Berita Resmi Merek yang dapat diakses oleh masyarakat umum sebagaimana halnya Pendaftaran Merek, yaitu melalui laman resmi Direktorat Jenderal Kekayaan Intelektual. Perpanjangan merek terdaftar yang diumumkan dalam Berita Resmi Merek diharapkan dapat memberikan informasi kepada Pemilik Merek yang mereknya telah dinyatakan terkenal melalui putusan pengadilan, sebagai dasar mengajukan gugatan pembatalan merek terhadap perpanjangan merek yang tanggal pengajuan permohonan perpanjangannya setelah tanggal diputuskan mereknya sebagai merek terkenal.

---

This thesis discusses the renewal of registration of a trademark that are not subject to substantive examination as requested for registration of trademarks. An application for registration of a trademark is refused if the trademark has similarities in principle or in whole with another party's well-known Mark for similar goods and / or services; or other parties' well-known brands for goods and / or services that do not meet the specific requirements. An application for registration of a mark may also be rejected if submitted by an applicant in bad faith. Based on the results of the study, it was found that there were registered trademark in Indonesia that had submitted applications for the renewal of registration of their trademarks, where those trademarks have similarities in principle or in whole with other well-known Marks owned by other parties for similar goods and / or services; or a well-known Mark of a party for similar goods and / or services that meet certain requirements, the owner of a well-known Mark must file a claim for the cancellation of registered trademarks against trademarks that have similarities in principle or in whole with his well-known Marks for similar goods and / or services ; or his well-known Marks for goods and / or services that are not similar that meet certain requirements. Criteria for determining well-known Marks is carried out with due regard to the general knowledge of the public about these trademarks in the relevant business fields. The results of the study suggest that the renewal of registration of a trademark should be announced in the Official Gazette of trademarks that can be accessed by the general public as well as Registration of Trademarks, namely through the official website of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property. The renewal of registration of a trademark which is announced in the Official Gazette of the Trademark is expected to be able to provide information to the Trademark Owner whose trademark has been declared well-known marks through a court decision, as the basis for filing a trademark cancellation claim against an extension of the trademark whose filing date for the renewal of registration of a trademark application after the date of deciding on the mark as a well-known mark.

"

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai implikasi yuridis atas pengenyampingan Pasal 43 ayat (2) huruf d Undang-Undang Rumah Susun dalam Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli Satuan Rumah Susun Bassura Apartemen. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah normatif yuridis dimana data penelitian sebagian besar diambil dari studi kepustakaan. Dibahas mengenai apakah pengenyampingan tersebut diperbolehkan serta akibat hukum yang mungkin timbul dari pengenyampingan tersebut dikaitkan dengan perjanjian pengikatan jual beli rumah susun bassura apartemen. Pembahasan didasarkan pada norma-norma hukum perdata dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata secara umum dan Undang-Undang Rumah Susun.

---

This thesis focuses on juridical implication on waive of article 43 paragraph (2) letter d of Apartment Law in Sale and Purchase of Bassura Apartment Agreement. This study uses a normative study in which research data is largely derived from the study of literature. It is discusssed whether the waiver is allowed as well as its legal consequences which may existed. The discussion shall generally refer to the civil law norms under Civil Code and Apartment Law."

"An Overview on The Returning of Payment Excess of Value Added Tax Arranged in Article 17C Law Number 16 The Year 2000 About Ordinary Implementation and Ethic of TaxationNowadays, the effort to increase tax acceptance is an urgent one. It is caused either by the uncertainty of oil and gas acceptance or the difficulty and the risk to get foreign loan. The tendency triggers the government to dig out and to maximize the acceptance from tax sector. One of them is done by the completion of regulation in the field of taxation while keeping in mind with the principles of fairness, Law assurance, legality and simplicity.The implementation of tax reform 2000 still undergoes many handicaps emerging both from the government. Who doesn't often have coordination in preparing the implementation regulation and lazy obliged taxpayers to implement or make use of taxation rules, which have been established smie they are often in a disadvantageous position. The handicap also takes place in the implementation of article 17C about Ordinary Implementation and Ethic of Taxation especially in the completion process of restitution of value added tax since in one side the government is willing to give a quick service in the restitution process but in the implementation regulation which have been released.The goal of this thesis writing is to know factors which affect the effectives of policy in giving the facility of returning the excess preliminary of value added tax as set in article 17C about Ordinary Implementation and Ethic of Taxation and further to analyze factors in order to be able to overcome the emerging problems.The research method done in this thesis writing is analytical descriptive method with data collecting technique is library research and field research through serious interview by using interview guideline to related persons and questionnaire distribution to 42 obedient obliged taxpayers which are listed in tax service offices in the area of Kanwil DJP Jakarta Khusus.From the discussion result we've got a conclusion that the handicap of the effectiveness of policy in giving the facility of returning the excess preliminary of valve added tax as established in article 17 C about Ordinary Provision and Taxation Procedure is primarily caused by the requirement or the criteria of obedient established is too heavy and the taxation section is too high if fiscal correction in post audit is found.To implement the facility policy of tax access preliminary returning well, the requirement or criteria in establishing obedient obliged taxpayers should be reoverwied and so should the regulation of administration section impalement in the form of 100% rise as established in article 17 C paragraph 5 about General Provision and Taxation Procedure.Bibliography = 40 references, 8 regulations, 4 scientific works 1 seminar papers (1971 - 2004)"