Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Kebijakan penggabungan Undang-Undang mengenai Perimbangan Keuangan antara Pemerintah Pusat dan Pemerintahan Daerah (UU Nomor 33 Tahun 2004) dan Undang-Undang mengenai Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah (UU Nomor 28 Tahun 2009) merupakan penguatan pelaksanaan otonomi daerah yang mulai berkembang, sejalan dengan penyusunan peraturan perundang-undangan yang saat ini cenderung sifatnya simplifikasi. Melalui penyederhanaan regulasi ini terdapat satu kesatuan pengaturan mengenai keuangan daerah baik yang berasal dari perpajakan daerah ataupun dari Transfer ke Daerah. Pengaturan penguatan ini memfokuskan pada signifikannya revenue dan expenditure assignment antar level pemerintahan, yang diharapkan dapat mewujudkan pemerataan layanan publik dan kesejahteraan masyarakat di daerah untuk peningkatan kualitas pelaksanaan desentralisasi fiskal di Indonesia, melalui penguatan belanja daerah, dengan diaturnya batasan-batasan penggunaan belanja daerah, selain itu juga dengan pemutakhiran kebijakan Transfer ke Daerah berbasis kinerja, pengembangan sistem pajak daerah yang efisien, perluasan skema pembiayaan daerah, dan harmonisasi belanja pusat dan daerah

---

The policy of merging the Law on Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and Regional Governments (Law Number 33 of 2004) and the Law on Regional Taxes and Levies (Law Number 28 of 2009) is a strengthening of the implementation of regional autonomy which is starting to develop, in line with the preparation of legislation that currently tends to be simplistic in nature. Through this simplification, there is a unified arrangement of regional finances, either from regional taxation or from transfers to regions. This strengthening arrangement focuses on the significance of revenue and expenditure assignments between levels of government, which is expected to realize equitable distribution of public services and community welfare in the regions to improve the quality of the implementation of fiscal decentralization in Indonesia, through strengthening regional expenditures, by setting limits on the use of regional expenditures, in addition to It also includes updating the performance-based Transfer to Regions policy, developing an efficient regional tax system, expanding regional financing schemes, and harmonizing central and regional expenditures."

"Tulisan ini menganalisis pengaturan imbalan bunga perpajakan setelah diundangkannya Undang – Undang 7 Tahun 2021 tentang Harmonisasi Peraturan Perpajakan atau UU HPP, khususnya dalam amar putusan Pengadilan Pajak. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Hak imbalan bunga perpajakan adalah bentuk representatif dari konsep value time of money. Konsep value time of money adalah perubahan nilai uang dari waktu ke waktu yang disebabkan oleh berbagai faktor. Hak imbalan bunga juga merupakan bentuk kesetaraan antara Wajib Pajak dan Fiskus karena apabila atas putusan sengketa pajak yang menyebabkan kelebihan pembayaran atas sengketa pajak wajib pajak dikenakan imbalan bunga perpajakan namun apabila putusan sengketa pajak menolak dan Wajib Pajak belum membayar dikenakan sanksi administrasi berupa denda. Namun pada praktiknya berdasarkan analisis pada putusan pengadilan pajak terdapat hak imbalan bunga yang tidak diberikan karena diberlakukannya UU HPP diberlakukan secara retroaktif sehingga hak imbalan bunga yang timbul dari UU KUP lama tidak diberikan imbalan bunga. Perspektif lainnya berdasarkan teori law and economics Wajib Pajak kehilangan kesempatan untuk mendapatkan keuntungan yang lebih karena terdapat eksternalitas pergantian peraturan perundang – undangan, sehingga dari sisi pembuat peraturan perlu mempertimbangkan teori Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency untuk menekan kenaikan angka sengketa pajak atas imbalan bunga.

---

This Thesis analyzes the regulation of tax interest rewards after the promulgation of Law 7 of 2021 concerning Harmonization of Tax Regulations or the HPP Law, especially in the ruling of the Tax Court. This Thesus was prepared using doctrinal research methods. Tax interest compensation rights are a representative form of the time value of money concept. The concept of time value of money is the change in the value of money over time caused by various factors. The right to receive interest compensation is also a form of equality between the Taxpayer and the Fiscus because if a tax dispute decision results in an overpayment of the tax dispute, the taxpayer is subject to tax interest compensation, but if the tax dispute decision is rejected and the Taxpayer has not paid, he is subject to administrative sanctions in the form of a fine. However, in practice, based on the analysis of the tax court's decision, interest compensation rights are not granted because the enactment of the HPP Law is applied retroactively so that interest compensation rights arising from the old KUP Law are not granted interest compensation. Another perspective is based on law and economics theory. Taxpayers lose the opportunity to gain more profits because there are externalities of changes in laws and regulations, so that from the regulatory side it is necessary to consider the Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency theory to reduce the increase in the number of tax disputes over interest rewards."

"Trend jumlah sengketa pajak yang masuk ke Pengadilan Pajak meningkat setiap tahun. Peningkatan salah satunya disebabkan oleh sengketa berulang sejenis yang sebelumnya sudah terdapat Putusan Pengadilan Pajak. Sengketa berulang ini merugikan Otoritas Pajak dan Wajib Pajak dari segi waktu dan biaya. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk memberikan gambaran kondisi harmonisasi atas sengketa berulang sejenis, peraturan yang belum dilakukan harmonisasi, dan pengaruh disharmonisasi peraturan.Penelitian ini merupakan studi kasus dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif. Data yang digunakan adalah Putusan Pengadilan Pajak tahun 2017 s.d 2019 sebanyak 1858 putusan dan wawancara kepada Praktisi Pajak dan DJP. Pengolahan data menggunakan analisis konten dan deskriptif. Hasil analisis konten putusan menunjukkan terdapat sengketa akibat disharmonisasi peraturan, yaitu: sengketa kegiatan usaha terpadu (Integrated), sengketa penerbitan Surat Ketetapan Pajak hasil Verifikasi, sengketa Tanggal Pemberitahuan Faktur Pajak Mendahului Nomor Seri Faktur Pajak (NSFP), dan sengketa penjualan barang jaminan gadai. Dari keempat sengketa tersebut merupakan sengketa berulang dan sudah ada Putusan Pengadilan Pajak dan Putusan Peninjauan Kembali.Hasil analisis pengolahan data dan wawancara diketahui disharmonisasi peraturan disebabkan kurangnya pemahaman mengenai filosofi perpajakan dan orientasi kepada peningkatan penerimaan. Fakta lainnya, harmonisasi peraturan baru dilakuan apabila sudah terbit Putusan Uji Materiil. Selain itu, ada peningkatan peningkatan jumlah sengketa, biaya, dan waktu akibat tidak dilakukannya harmonisasi peraturan atas sengketa berulang sejenis.Dari hasil pembahasan diperoleh kesimpulan Putusan Pengadilan Pajak belum dijadikan dasar untuk melakukan harmonisasi peraturan, begitu juga yang sudah diperkuat dengan Putusan Peninjauan Kembali. Subdirektorat Harmonisasi Peraturan belum melakukan perbaikan peraturan yang menjadi sengketa berulang sejenis. Terakhir, disharmonisasi peraturan merugikan Otoritas Pajak dan Wajib Pajak dari segi peningkatan jumlah sengketa, biaya, dan waktu.

---

The trend of the number of tax disputes submitted to the Tax Court is increasing every year. One of the increases was caused by recurring disputes of the same type for which there had previously been a Tax Court Decision. This recurring dispute is detrimental to the Tax Authorities and Taxpayers in terms of time and cost. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the harmonization conditions for recurring disputes of the same type, regulations that have not been harmonized, and the effect of regulatory disharmony.

This research is a case study using qualitative methods. The data used are 1858 decisions and interviews with Tax Practitioners and DGT for 2017 to 2019. Data processing using content analysis and descriptive. The results of the analysis of the content of the verdict show that there are disputes due to regulatory disharmony, namely integrated business activity disputes, disputes on the issuance of Verification Tax Assessment, disputes on Tax Invoice Notification Date Preceding Tax Invoice Serial Number (NSFP), and disputes on the sale of pledged collateral. Of the four disputes are recurring disputes, and there are already Tax Court Decisions and Judgment on Reconsideration.

Data processing analysis and interviews show that regulatory disharmony is due to a lack of understanding of taxation philosophy and orientation towards increasing revenue. Another fact is that the harmonization of new regulations takes effect when a Judicial Review Decision has been issued. Besides, there is an increase in the number of disputes, costs, and time due to not harmonizing the regulations on recurring disputes of this kind.

From the discussion results, it is concluded that the Tax Court Decision has not been used as a basis for harmonizing regulations, as has been strengthened by the Judgment on Reconsideration. The Sub-directorate of Regulatory Harmonization has not made any improvements to regulations that become recurring disputes of the same type. Finally, disharmony of regulations is detrimental to the Tax Authorities and Taxpayers in increasing the number of disputes, costs, and time"

"Task and responsibility tax representative and tax authority in fulfilling tax obligation is sometimes alike with tax representative which is represented or the one that authorized. The main problem of research in interrogative sentence form, namely, is : How big is the influence of responsibility between representative and tax authority in fulfilling lax obligation? The objective is to know main problem of research hypothesis, namely : First : Is it predicted that responsibility of representative and tax authority has positive influence in fulfilling tax obligation of tax payer? Second : ls it predicted that there is a significant correlation between representative responsibility and tax authority in fulfilling tax obligation of tax payer?Tax law or fiscal law is formulated as : A whole of rules that covering government authority to withdraw someone?s wealth and return to public through government cash office, so that, it becomes a part of public law that regulates connection of law between country (government) and people (public) and institutions (of law) that has obligation to pay tax. Obligation is a must to take a certain steps, pay tax, lbr example, and obey the rules to respect other people. Personal responsibility and in-line of tax obedience is able to be meant as an individual obligation in-line on behalf of him/herself in fulfilling the tax obligation according to tax rules and regulation, as a consequency of rights? got to that person individually of subject and object of tax.Appearance of representative is might be born by an agreement and might be born by regulation Giving authority can be made specific as one purpose only or more and giving authority in general as an arrangement activity only. The representative meant here is covering representative based on regulation as parents or relative according to regulation representing children under their authority.The research used qualitative method. Qualitative method with analysis descriptive approach covering theoretical analysis and bibliography study. Research population are PT. Jasprim Dinamika Global and Indonesia tax consultant. Research variable are tax representative and tax consultant as independent variable. Tax obligation fulfilling of tax payer as dependent variable. Data collecting technique to test hypothesis by simple regression formula and correlation coefficient and determinant coefficient.Calculation result of correlation coefficient is 07338. This correlation coefficient calculation value means the responsibility of representative and tax authority in doing tax obligation of tax payer has a strong positive correlation in fulfilling tax obligation of tax payer. Mentioning of having a strong correlation is because of correlation coefficient value is in coefficient interval of 0.60 to 0.1799. Determinant coefficient of this correlation coefficient is KD = r2 x 100 or 53,85%. The size of representative responsibility and tax authority in fulfilling tax obligation of tax payer which is represented and authorized is 53,85%. The rest is influenced by other factors except the responsibility of representative and tax authority. This case is authomatically as a prove of first hypothesis.Fcounting8 is actually more, if compared with Ftable therefore a whole variable influence is significant. The second hypothesis of this research can be accepted, in another words that there is a significant correlation between representative and tax authority in fulfilling tax obligation of tax payer. This research globally proves that representative and tax authority has a positive influence in fulfilling tax obligation through the using methods.Tax authority in doing its working always refers to valid tax regulation. Letter of statement from tax consultant which should be sent/reported at every time accepting tax authority from tax payer, should not be per tax item enclosure, but just enough in once enclosing of copied enclosure at the time of accepting authority from tax payer of each tax service office."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang ketentuan voluntary disclosure yang ada dalam hukum pajak di Indonesia. Latar belakang masalah adalah wajib pajak yang awalnya mengetahui atau menghendaki adanya suatu penghindaran pajak, tapi dengan kesadaran sendiri dapat berupaya memperbaiki dan mengubah perhitungan pajak-pajak terhutang. Terhadap kekeliruan dalam pengisian SPT yang dibuat oleh wajib pajak, wajib pajak masih berhak untuk melakukan pembetulan SPT atas kemauan sendiri, dan mengungkapan ketidakbenaran pengisian SPT (voluntary disclosure) sesuai dengan peraturan perundangundangan perpajakan. Kegunaan penelitian ini akan memberikan rekomendasi terhadap penerapan ketentuan perundang-undangan perpajakan tentang upaya voluntary disclosure, seperti pembetulan SPT dan pengungkapan ketidakbenaran pengisian SPT, yang relevan dengan peningkatan penerimaan negara dan implikasinya dengan tax compliance dan tax enforcement. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dan bersifat deskriptif analisis. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah mendorong wajib pajak menggunakan haknya untuk melakukan voluntary disclosure dengan harapan dapat mengurangi upaya tax enforcement dan administrative cost, sehingga tax compliance meningkat, serta penerimaan pajak juga meningkat. Oleh karena itu, keringanan sanksi diperlukan agar wajib pajak pada saat melakukan voluntary disclosure tidak terbebani sanksi yang lebih besar dibandingkan sanksi yang dikenakan ketika otoritas perpajakan melakukan tax enforcement.

---

This study discusses about the voluntary disclosure provisions that have been included in the Indonesia Tax Law. The issue is the taxpayers who initially knew or required an avoidance of tax, but the voluntarily amend and correct the calculation of their taxes payable. For all mistakes in filing tax return, the taxpayers have the right to make any corrections, and disclose of incorrectness in completing the filed tax return in accordance with tax law.

The usefulness of this study will provide recommendations on the implementation of the provisions of tax laws concerning voluntary disclosure, such as amendment of tax return or disclosure of incorrectness in completing the filed tax return, that has relevance to increase tax revenues and its implications with tax compliance and tax enforcement. This study is qualitative and descriptive analysis.

The results of this study are encouraging taxpayers to use their rights to make voluntary disclosure to reduce the tax enforcement efforts and administrative costs, thus increasing tax compliance and tax revenues. Therefore, reducing/waiving penalties are necessary for the taxpayer to make voluntary disclosure. When doing voluntary disclosure, the penalties should be lower than the penalties of tax enforcement."

"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."

"Kewenangan Presiden dalam menetapkan Perppu hanya dapat dilaksanakan dalam hal ihwal kegentingan yang memaksa. Hal ihwal kegentingan yang memaksa sebagai dasar untuk menetapkan Perppu ditentukan berdasarkan subjektivitas Presiden, di mana setiap kali Presiden menetapkan Perppu seringkali timbul perdebatan mengenai hal ihwal kegentingan yang memaksa itu sendiri. Skripsi ini membahas mengenai kewenangan Presiden dalam menetapkan Perppu dan hal ihwal kegentingan yang memaksa seperti apa yang menjadi dasar ditetapkannya Perppu No. 1 Tahun 2017. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif, yaitu penelitian yang menggunakan data sekunder. Meskipun penilaian terhadap ihwal kegentingan yang memaksa berdasarkan subjektivitas Presiden, tetap harus sejalan juga dengan syarat kegentingan memaksa sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 138/PUU-VII/2009. Diterbitkannya Perppu No. 1 Tahun 2017 adalah karena adanya kebutuhan mendesak untuk segera membuat peraturan sesuai dengan standar pelaksanaan AEOI, sedangkan ketentuan dimaksud belum ada pengaturannya dalam undang-undang di Indonesia, peraturan dimaksud juga harus berlaku sebelum tanggal 30 Juni 2017 agar Indonesia dapat ikut serta dalam pelaksanaan AEOI. Syarat kegentingan yang memaksa sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 sebaiknya dimuat ke dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dan disusun secara lebih lengkap dan komprehensif.

---

The authority of the President in establishing the Perppu can only be carried out in the relevance and urgency. The relevance and urgency as the basis for establishing the Perppu is determined on the basis of the President 39 s subjectivity, of which every time the President establishes the Perppu there is often a debate about the relevance and urgency itself. This thesis discusses the authority of the President in establishing the Perppu and the relevance and urgency of what is the basis for the stipulation of Perppu No. 1 of 2017. The research method used is normative juridical, that is research using secondary data. Although the assessment of the relevance and urgency were based on the subjectivity of the President, it must also be in line with the requirement of relevance and urgency as referred to in the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 138 PUU VII 2009. The establishment of Perppu No. 1 of 2017 is due to the urgent need to immediately establish regulations in accordance with AEOI implementation standards, whereas those provisions have not yet been regulated in law in Indonesia, they shall also apply before 30 June 2017 so that Indonesia may participate in the implementation of AEOI. The requirement of relevance and urgency as referred to in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 138 PUU VII 2009 should be incorporated into legislation and prepared more fully and comprehensively. "