Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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. "

"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)"

"Sunset Policy merupakan fasilitas dari Pemerintah berupa penghapusan sanksi administrasi berupa bunga atas kekurangan pembayaran Pajak Penghasilan Orang Pribadi atau Badan yang dapat dinikmati oleh masyarakat. Sunset Policy diatur dalam Pasal 37A Undang-undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 Mengenai Ketentuan dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UU KUP). Dengan adanya ketentuan Sunset Policy diharapkan pajak tidak lagi merupakan momok bagi masyarakat, dan masyarakat diharapkan mau lebih terbuka dan transparan dalam melaporkan kewajiban perpajakannya. Kebijakan Sunset Policy bertujuan untuk meningkatkan jumlah penerimaan Negara dari sektor pajak dan jumlah Wajib Pajak, baik itu Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi maupun badan serta guna memperoleh basis data Wajib Pajak. Oleh karena itu, penulis ingin membahas mengenai sejauh mana Peranan Sunset Policy dalam rangka peningkatan jumlah Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi, Khususnya pada Kantor Pelayan Pajak Pratama Jakarta Pademangan dan kaitannya dengan penegakan Hukum Pajak. Adapun metode pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif, dengan teknik pengumpulan data yang bersifat analisis kualitatif guna menghasilkan data deskriptif. yang analisa datanya dibantu dengan data kualitatif yang berbentuk tabel dan grafik guna menjawab permasalahan dalam penelitian ini. Meskipun di dalam pelaksanaan program Sunset Policy masih terdapat beberapa kelemahan, akan tetapi tidak dapat dipungkiri bahwa Program telah membuahkan hasil yang baik dalam rangka peningkatan jumlah Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi. kedepannya hasil dari program ini diharapkan dapat menjadi dasar bagi pemerintah dalam melakukan reformasi perpajakan dan penegakan hukum pajak Indonesia.

---

Sunset Policy is a government policy as an instrument to facilite for Tax Payer o omit administrative penalty such as tax interest in the lack of the Personal Tax ayer and Company Tax Payer in their Payment of Tax Income. The Sunset olicy Regulation is enacted in article 37A of Act Number 28 Year 2007 such as eneral Regulation of Taxation (UU KUP). The implication of Sunset Policy is xpected that Taxation is longer will not hurrify the Tax Payer, and they will be xpected to become more open and transparent in reporting of their Taxation bligation. The goals of implementation of the Sunset Policy are to increase the um of state income from Tax revenue. and also to increase the sum of Personal nd Company Tax Payer, those expected to improve database.

Therefore this research is emphasizing in the Implication of Sunset Policy for increasing the um of the Personal Tax Payer, particularly in Kantor Pelayanan Pajak Pratama akarta Pademangan and its relation to Tax Law enforcement.

This research conduct by juridicial normatives method, which is using qualitative analysis in atabase collecting which is will conclude descriptive data. which the data nalysing is using qualitative data such as table and chart to conclude the esearch question. Eventough in this Sunset Policy there are still several iminishion, but this program could impact the increasing sum of Personal Tax Payer. Furthermore this program is expected to the foundament for the government to create and enact Tax Policies such as Tax Reform and The Enforcement of Taxation in Indonesia."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan yang dilakukan oleh Wajib Pajak, tata cara penyelesaian tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan menurut peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan dan pengaruhnya terhadap penerimaan negara yang dilihat dari aspek keadilan dalam pemungutan pajak. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Tujuan utama penelitian ini adalah untuk menguraikan dan memberikan masukan terhadap penerapan dari penyelesaian tindak pidana pajak di luar pengadilan dan aturan hukum atas tindak pidana tersebut. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa Pasal44B Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UU KUP) memberikan peluang bagi wajib pajak untuk menyelesaikan tindak pidana yang dilakukan tanpa melalui proses pengadilan. Pasal 44B UU KUP juga memberikan peluang penerimaan negara yang lebih besar. Penyelesaian tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan berdasarkan perundang-undangan perpajakan yang dilakukan tanpa melalui proses pengadilan telah sesuai dengan tujuan utama pajak dan tidak menyalahi asas hukum yang berlaku di Indonesia.

---

ABSTRACTThis study discusses the criminal acts committed by the taxpayer, the completion of that case according to the General Provision of Taxation Law and the settlement outside the court and its effect on state revenues which are viewed from the aspect of fairness in tax collection. The approach of this study is qualitative, while the method is descriptive. The main objective was to describe and provide input to the implementation of criminal tax settlement outside the court and the rule of law for such crime. The study concluded that article 44B in General Provisions of Taxation Law provides the opportunity for taxpayers to resolve crimes carried out without going through the court process. This article also provides opportunities for greater state revenues. Completion of criminal offenses in the field of taxation based on tax legislation without going through the court process conducted in accordance with the primary purpose and does not violate the principle of tax law in Indonesia."

"Peraturan mengenai kewajiban memungut Pajak Pertambahan Nilai oleh Pengusaha Kena Pajak dan objek yang dapat dikenakan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai diatur di dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 42 tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Pertambahan Nilai. Pelaksanaan dan tata cara pemungutan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai diatur di dalam Undang-undang 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Di dalam UU No. 28 tahun 2007 tersebut diatur pula pengukuhan Pengusaha Kena Pajak, dan juga sanksi apabila seorang Pengusaha Kena Pajak tidak melaksanakan kewajibannya. Namun, masalah kemudian timbul terkait kapan kewajiban perpajakan dari Pengusaha Kena Pajak itu timbul. Tidak ada pengaturan lebih lanjut dalam UU No. 28 tahun 2007 dan justru dalam UU No. 28 tahun 2007 terdapat pengaturan yang berimplikasi paradoks terhadap UU No. 42 Tahun 2009 terkait dengan kewajiban memungut Pajak Pertambahan Nilai yang dilakukan oleh Pengusaha Kena Pajak. Oleh karena itu dengan penelitian yang bersifat yuridis normatif maka tulisan ini akan menganalisis peran Wajib Pajak serta Direktorat Jenderal Pajak dalam rangka pelaksanaan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai sebagaimana terjadi dalam kasus Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XIV/2016. Dari penelitian ini dapat ditemukan bahwa masih terdapat kekosongan hukum terkait pengaturan kewajiban perpajakan Pengusaha Kena Pajak.

---

The regulations governing Value-Added Tax is Law No. 42 of 2009 on Value- Added Tax. The implementation of the Value-Added Tax is regulated in Law No. 28 of 2007 on General Provision and Taxation Procedure. Law No. 28 of 2007 regulates how to appoint someone to be a Taxable Entrepreneur/Enterprise. Nonetheless, problems then arise related to when is the tax obligation begins. No regulations regulate those things, and paradoxical interpretations arise between Law No. 42 of 2009 and Law No. 28 of 2007 related to Taxable Entrepreneur Obligations. Therefore, using Normative and Juridical methods in this study will try to conclude and analyze the taxpayers and the IRS’ role in conducting the Value- Added Tax activities based on the Constitutional Court’s Verdict No.13/PUU- XIV/2016. Build upon the case mentioned before; it concluded that there is still a legal uncertainty regarding the regulation that governs when the Taxable Entrepreneur’s tax obligations begin."

"Peraturan mengenai kewajiban memungut Pajak Pertambahan Nilai oleh Pengusaha Kena Pajak dan objek yang dapat dikenakan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai diatur di dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 42 tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Pertambahan Nilai. Pelaksanaan dan tata cara pemungutan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai diatur di dalam Undang-undang 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Di dalam UU No. 28 tahun 2007 tersebut diatur pula pengukuhan Pengusaha Kena Pajak, dan juga sanksi apabila seorang Pengusaha Kena Pajak tidak melaksanakan kewajibannya. Namun, masalah kemudian timbul terkait kapan kewajiban perpajakan dari Pengusaha Kena Pajak itu timbul. Tidak ada pengaturan lebih lanjut dalam UU No. 28 tahun 2007 dan justru dalam UU No. 28 tahun 2007 terdapat pengaturan yang berimplikasi paradoks terhadap UU No. 42 Tahun 2009 terkait dengan kewajiban memungut Pajak Pertambahan Nilai yang dilakukan oleh Pengusaha Kena Pajak. Oleh karena itu dengan penelitian yang bersifat yuridis normatif maka tulisan ini akan menganalisis peran Wajib Pajak serta Direktorat Jenderal Pajak dalam rangka pelaksanaan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai sebagaimana terjadi dalam kasus Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XIV/2016. Dari penelitian ini dapat ditemukan bahwa masih terdapat kekosongan hukum terkait pengaturan kewajiban perpajakan Pengusaha Kena Pajak.

---

The regulations governing Value-Added Tax is Law No. 42 of 2009 on Value-Added Tax. The implementation of the Value-Added Tax is regulated in Law No. 28 of 2007 on General Provision and Taxation Procedure. Law No. 28 of 2007 regulates how to appoint someone to be a Taxable Entrepreneur/Enterprise. Nonetheless, problems then arise related to when is the tax obligation begins. No regulations regulate those things, and paradoxical interpretations arise between Law No. 42 of 2009 and Law No. 28 of 2007 related to Taxable Entrepreneur Obligations. Therefore, using Normative and Juridical methods in this study will try to conclude and analyze the taxpayers and the IRS’ role in conducting the Value-Added Tax activities based on Constitutional Court’s Verdict No.13/PUU-XIV/2016. Build upon the case mentioned before; it concluded that there is still a legal uncertainty regarding the regulation that governs when the Taxable Entrepreneur’s tax obligations are begin. "