Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Usulan penolakan merek (hearing) merupakan bagian dari proses pemeriksaan substantif. Proses pemeriksaan substantif merupakan salah satu proses yang harus dilalui dalam suatu permohonan pendaftaran merek, dalam proses pemeriksaan substantif ini seorang Pemeriksa merek akan memeriksa dan menganalisa suatu permohonan pendafataran merek apakah harus diterima atau ditolak, jika permohonan pendaftaran merek ditolak karena dianggap memiliki persamaan dengan milik pihak lain yang telah terdaftar maka Ditjen HKI dalam hal ini adalah pemeriksa akan mengirimkan surat usulan penolakan merek (Hearing) kepada pemohon atau melalui kuasanya. Dalam melakukan pemeriksaan dan penilaian terhadap suatu permohonan pendaftaran Merek, Pemeriksa merek berpedoman pada ketentuan yang terdapat pada pasal 18 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Merek No 15 Tahun 2001 yang menyatakan bahwa pemeriksaan merek dilakukan berdasarkan ketentuan Pasal 4, pasal 5 dan pasal 6. Namun sering kali dalam prakteknya penulis menemukan fakta bahwa dasar dari Pemeriksa Merek dalam menetapkan status Hearing atas suatu permohonan pendaftaran merek tidak konsisten, antara satu pemeriksa dengan pemeriksa yang lain bisa berbeda hasil penilaiannya terhadap satu objek merek yang sama, bahkan ada permohonan yang ditolak karena dianggap memiliki persamaan dengan merek miliknya sendiri sebagaimana yang terjadi dalam penetapan hearing Merek A&X Casa+Lukisan Nomor Agenda D002013012391 sehingga terkesan proses pemeriksaan yang dilakukan oleh pemeriksa mengada-ada dan tidak masuk akal karena sering kali terjadi kesalahan dan kekeliruan dalam menetapkan hearing hal ini tidak lepas dari proses pemeriksaan yang sifatnya masih sangat subjektif tergantung pada pengetahuan pemeriksa itu sendiri.

---

Hearing is part of Substantive examination process Substantive examination process is a process that must be undertaken in trademark registration in the process of substantive examination the examiner will examine and analyze the trademark application are to be accepted or rejected if the application for registration is rejected because is considered to have similarities with the other party the Directorate General in this case is the examiner will send a letter of refusal to the applicant or the representative The process of examination and assessment whos conducted by the examiners in accordance to article 18 paragraph 2 of the Law No 15 of 2001 Regarding Marks stating that The substantive examination shall be conducted with due regard to the provisions of Article 4 Article 5 and Article 6 However in practice the author finds the fact that the examiners in determining the status of the Hearing of an trademark application is not consistent between one examiners with another examiners the result is different although with the same object or trademark there 39 s even a trademark application that was refused because it is considered to have similarities with his own trademark as happened in the case of A X Casa painting Number D002013012391 so impressed the examination process conducted far fetched and senseless because very subjective depending on the knowledge of the examiner itself."

"Perkembangan perdagangan yang meningkat pesat telah meningkatkan nilai suatu Merek bagi Para pelaku usaha. Merek bukan sekadar alat pembeda namun telah menjadi aset yang berharga. Untuk itu perlindungan hukum terhadap Merek bagi pelaku usaha sangat penting. Upaya mendapatkan perlindungan tersebut dilakukan dengan melakukan pendaftaran Merek di Direktorat Jenderal Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Namun tidak semua pendaftaran dapat diterima karena ketentuan dalam Undang-undang No 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang Merek. Untuk memberikan upaya hukum yang maksimal maka dapat dilakukan banding terhadap penolakan pendaftaran Merek melalui Komisi Banding Merek. Komisi Banding Merek diatur berdasarkan Pasal 33 Undang-undang No 15 Tahun 2001 Tentang Merek, yang teknis pelaksanaannya diatur dalam Peraturan Pemerintah No 7 Tahun 2005 Tentang Susunan organisasi, Tugas, dan Fungsi Komisi Banding Merek. Dalam ketentuan tersebut, Komisi Banding Merek merupakan badan khusus yang independen namun dalam pelaksanaannya belum dapat sepenuhnya terlepas dari Direktorat Jenderal Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Komisi Banding Merek ditinjau dari fungsi dan tugasnya, temyata bertugas layaknya pengadilan sehingga Komisi Banding Merek dapat dikategorikan sebagai peradilan semu, yaitu tidak seratus persen merupakan badan peradilan murni yang termasuk kekuasaan Kehakiman, tetapi juga tidak seratus persen merupakan organ administratif sebab memiliki tugas untuk menyelesaikan suatu sengketa Komisi Banding Merek ini secara struktural organisatoris masih merupakan bagian dalam unsur pemerintah, sehingga putusan yang diambil oleh Komisi Banding Merek masih dapat digugat dalam suatu Peradilan murni. Dalam kaitannya dengan good governance, Komisi Banding Merek harus dilaksanakan sama dengan tuntutan terhadap Pengadilan pada umumnya yaitu berdasarkan pada asas peradilan yang babas, mandiri atau independen, tidak memihak (imparsial), memiliki akuntabilitas, kompeten (berkualitas), cepat dan sederhana. Untuk mewujudkan hal tersebut maka mereka yang akan ditempatkan sebagai anggota dari Komisi Banding Merek harus memiliki sumber daya manusia yang baik sehingga anggota Komisi Banding Merek dapat bersikap profesional."

"Dalam pelaksanaannya, proses pemungutan pajak oleh Fiskus tidak selamanya berlangsung mulus, adakalanya proses pemungutan tersebut bergejolak sehingga menimbulkan sengketa antara Fiskus dengan Wajib Pajak. Keberadaan dan kedudukan Pengadilan Pajak dalam Undang-undang adalah untuk melaksanakan kekuasaan kehakiman, melakukan pemeriksaan, dan memutus sengketa pajak bagi Wajib Pajak yang mencari keadilan. Pengadilan Pajak berfungsi sebagai peredam gejolak sekaligus sebagai pengawal proses pemungutan pajak sehingga jumlah penerimaan pajak yang masuk ke kas negara merupakan jumlah yang neto atau jumlah yang bersih dari sengketa. Berdasarkan data yang ada diketahui bahwa Wajib Pajak lebih banyak memenangkan persengketaan pajak di Pengadilan Pajak dibandingkan Fiskus.Penelitian ini mengkaji tentang penyebab permohonan banding Wajib Pajak dimenangkan di Pengadilan Pajak yang artinya Wajib Pajak memenangkan persengketaan di Pengadilan pajak dan upaya-upaya DJP untuk meminimalisir hal tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif.Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar DJP meningkatkan kualitas hasil pemeriksaan dan penelitian keberatannya dengan mengimplementasikan prinsip reward and punishment dimana DJP tidak perlu lagi menggunakan realisasi penerimaan dari hasil pemeriksaan sebagai alat ukur kinerja, DJP melakukan pertemuan rutin secara periodik dengan Pengadilan Pajak sehingga terbentuk kesepahaman yang sama tentang suatu ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan, DJP langsung menggunakan hasil evaluasi Putusan Pengadilan Pajak untuk merevisi suatu peraturan yang dianggap tidak adil dan membuat peraturan terhadap suatu proses bisnis yang belum diatur, dan DJP melakukan pembahasan dengan Pengadilan pajak untuk menciptakan sinergi mengenai penilaian pembuktian.In practice, the process of tax collection by the tax authorities do not always go smoothly, sometimes the process of collecting is volatile, giving rise to disputes between tax authorities and taxpayers. The existence and position of the Tax Court in the Law is to implement the judicial authorities, conduct, and decide tax disputes for taxpayers who seek justice. Tax court serves as a dampening volatility as well as the guardian of the tax collection process so that the amount of tax revenue coming into the state treasury is the net amount or the amount exclude the dispute. Based on existing data, more taxpayers wins tax dispute in the Tax Court than the tax authorities.

This research examine the causes of Taxpayers appeals won in Tax Court which means taxpayers won the dispute in Tax Court and DJP efforts to minimize that. This research is a qualitative research with descriptive design.

Result of the research suggest DJP improve the quality of the tax audit or verification result and objection settlement by implementing the rewards and punishment principle where DJP no longer necessity to use actual revenues from the tax audit or verification results as a performance measurement tool, DJP periodically conduct regular meetings with the Tax Court to form a same understanding of tax regulations, DJP immediately tap the evaluation result of Tax Court Decision to revise a regulation that are considered not fair and make new regulation against a business process which not yet regulated, and DJP make a discussion with Tax Court to create synergy about assessment of the evidence."

"The findings of tax audit stipulated in the tax decree letter sometimes create disputes between tax payers and fiscus. The resolution of the tax dispute is done through Objection Institution at the first level, then Tax Court, and finally Supreme Court. Based on the data there were many appeal pledges granted at the appeal level. Long process along with the charges imposed on the tax payers for some parts of their outstanding taxes as a formal requirement of pledging the appeal has caused high cost from the part of tax payers. The Objection Institution is expected by the tax payers to be able to fulfil their aspirations in seeking for justice.This thesis was intended to provide a picture about what went on in the tax disputes that went into the appeal level of Tax Court; how the attitude of assembly towards the approch to calculating the Fiscus, what were the weaknesses of the audit results, and what solutions that could be done to overcome the problems.To answer those questions the data in a farm of Tax Court verdicts were collected and analysed. To limit the problems the verdicts (data) that were analysed were only verdicts related with the objections in the Regional Office of Directorate General of Tax Jakarta II. and confined to Income Tax type. Based on the research it was found that there a few things that made the difference between fiscus and tax payers. amongst other split opinions in verifying the supporting evidence, the officials handicaps in understanding and interpreting the patterns of the fax payers' businesses, the ignorance of the tax payers in understanding the tax rules and regulations. and the inadequate rules of tax implementation. From the four factors, in fact, the real problems were the followings:- Split opinions in verifying supporting evidence;- The officials handicaps in understanding and interpreting the patterns of the tax payers' businesses and accountancy;- The inadequate rules of tax implementationThe reviewed or cancelled tax assesments in the appeal process showed that there were weaknesses in the auditing products. Such weaknesses occurred particularly due to the insufficient application of the auditing procedures. The auditors found the indication of tax potency, however. they were not able to proove it with conclusive material evidence so that the auditors' correction could not be defended in the Tax Court.The unsatisfied tax payers towards the audit results had made the tax payers to take the objection process until the appeal and review. The length of the time span had caused two things:- The service provision to the tax payers decreased;- Opportunity for the tax payers.The correction in audit procedures was the main key because the audit results would play significant role and would determine the research process in the objection level, tax court, as well as judicial review in the Supreme Court. The confirmation of the data availabilty was of great importance, on condition that the tax payers were given sufficient time to respond to the audit resultsThe performance of the Objection Institution needed to be improved so that it could deny such negative perceptions as: stamping the audit results, lengthening the audit period, or merely to decrease the amount taxes that were reported to the Tax Court. To overcome such problems there needed to consider the discourse (concept) to shorten the objection resolution period, besides the proposal to consider jurisprudency of the Tax Court verdicts."

"Praktik transfer pricing di Indonesia berkembang pesat beriringan dengan perkembangan perusahaan multinasional. Berkaitan dengan hal ini, baik DJP maupun Wajib Pajak harus memenuhi peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dalam menerapkan PKKU pada praktik transfer pricing. Namun, tidak jarang ditemukan baik DJP maupun Wajib Pajak belum dapat mengimplementasikan ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut, yang kemudian mengarah kepada terjadinya sengketa pajak. Salah satu isu yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini berfokus pada analisis koreksi biaya bunga pinjaman dan penerapan secondary adjustment dalam konteks keputusan Pengadilan Pajak atas permohonan Banding PT WBI. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengevaluasi kesesuaian putusan Pengadilan Pajak terhadap PKKU dalam koreksi yang dilakukan oleh DJP serta penerapan secondary adjustment. Metode yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kualitatif dengan studi lapangan dan studi pustaka, yang menggabungkan analisis dokumen dengan wawancara mendalam terhadap berbagai pihak yang terlibat dalam kasus ini. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Majelis Hakim telah mempertimbangkan argumen DJP dan Wajib Pajak dalam memutus sengketa dengan tetap memperhatikan regulasi yang ada. Koreksi yang dilakukan oleh DJP tidak didukung oleh bukti yang memadai, sehingga mengakibatkan pembatalan primary adjustment dan mempengaruhi kelayakan secondary adjustment yang diterapkan. Kesimpulannya, Majelis Hakim telah mengambil keputusan sejalan dengan PKKU, serta secondary adjustment dibatalkan karena pengaruh dari pembatalan primary adjustment. Namun demikian, penerapan secondary adjustment tetap harus diperhatikan karena tidak dapat diterapkan kepada seluruh Wajib Pajak. Kebutuhan akan kejelasan lebih lanjut bahwa penerapan secondary adjustment kepada selain pemegang saham diperlukan untuk mencegah sengketa pajak di masa mendatang.

---

The practice of transfer pricing in Indonesia has developed rapidly along with the growth of multinational companies. In this context, both the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP) and taxpayers are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations in implementing the General Provisions of Tax Procedures (PKKU) in transfer pricing practices. However, it is not uncommon to find that both the DJP and taxpayers have not yet implemented these provisions, leading to tax disputes. One issue addressed in this research focuses on the analysis of interest expense corrections and the application of secondary adjustments in the context of the Tax Court's decision on PT WBI's appeal. The objective of this study is to evaluate the consistency of the Tax Court's decision with PKKU in the corrections made by the DJP and the application of secondary adjustments. The method used is a qualitative approach with field studies and literature studies, combining document analysis with in-depth interviews with various parties involved in this case. The research findings indicate that the panel of judges considered the arguments of both the DJP and the taxpayers in resolving the dispute while still considering the existing regulations. The corrections made by the DJP were not supported by sufficient evidence, resulting in the annulment of the primary adjustment and affecting the feasibility of the secondary adjustment applied. In conclusion, the panel of judges made decisions in line with PKKU, and the secondary adjustment was canceled due to the impact of the annulment of the primary adjustment. However, the application of secondary adjustments must still be considered as they cannot be applied to all taxpayers. A further need for clarity that the application of secondary adjustments to parties other than shareholders is necessary to prevent future tax disputes."