Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penyelesaian sengketa pajak tidak terlepas dari permasalahan. Keberadaan Pengadilan Pajak saat ini menjadi sorotan publik karena adanya pegawai yang korupsi, penyelesaian sengketa pajak yang lama, dan penumpukan kasus. Peran pengawasan menjadi penting agar Pengadilan Pajak bekerja sesuai dengan ketentuannya. Fokus penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengawasan yang dilakukan oleh Pengadilan Pajak dalam mekanisme penyelesaian banding.Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif positivis, di mana data dan informasi dalam penelitian ini diperoleh melalui studi lapangan dengan wawancara mendalam berbagai pihak yang terkait dan studi kepustakaan. Jenis penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitik dan teknik analisis data dalam penelitian ini adalah kualitatif.Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa pengawasan belum baik dalam mekanisme penyelesaian banding di Pengadilan Pajak ditinjau dari teori pengawasan Robbins dan Coulter.

---

Completion of tax disputes can not be separated from the problem. The existence of the tax court in Indonesia becomes the public spotlight today because of the corrupt officials, the long tax dispute completion, and the accumulating cases. Controlling is important in the tax court in order to accordance with objectives and standards. Focus of this study purposes determine the controlling carried out by the tax court in an appeal mechanism to resolve.

This research uses a positivist quantitative research approach which the data in the study is obtained through depth interview of stakeholders and literature study. Type of research in this study is descriptive-analytic and method of data analysis is qualitative.

The result of this study is not good tax court controlling in completing the appeal mechanism based on the theory of controlling Robbins and Coulter."

"In the event of dispute of tax between Tax Payer and Directorate General of Tax cannot be settled in the process of study of tax and objection, the Tax Payer can file appeal against such tax dispute to the Tax Court. The Tax Payer hopes that he will obtain justice and legal certainty according to decision of the Tax Court issued.Nevertheless, there are some Tax Court decisions which are different upon dispute of the same tax. The Different Decision of the Tax Court does not give legal certainty and justice feeling. One of ways to secure in order that the Tax Court decision resulted consistent is to consider jurisprudence by the judge in making the decision. The Using of this jurisprudence must be carefully studied in order not to violate against the independency of judge in making the decision.This study is conducted by using theories in connection with jurisprudence, judge independence and tax court and at glance about VAT and Luxury Sales Tax facilities in connection with tax function which regulates. This study uses qualitative approach methods as well as using data source in the form of interview with source person, books, literatures, rules and regulations and other sources in connection with discussion topic in this thesis. In this study uses case study upon the tax dispute concerning facility of postponement of payment of VAT and Luxury Sales Tax to the production Sharing Contract (PSC) where some tax disputes has been decided by the Tax Court.Based on result of analysis to some decisions of the Tax Court, jurisprudence is not always considered by the judge in making the decision of the Tax Court although according to explanation of theories from experts and result of interview, considering jurisprudence in making the decision will not break judge independent principle. Besides, inconsistency of the decision of Tax Court caused by implementation of legal principles which are different by the judge in making decision of Tax Court. Based on the study mentioned above it can be concluded that procedure of use of jurisprudence not always to be implemented by the judge despite use of jurisprudence not violates against judge independent principle. For that purpose, it is recommended such procedure can be standardized so that consistency of decision of the Tax Court can be secured."

"Skripsi ini membahas praktik Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR dalam penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Indonesia dan hambatannya Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan metode deskriptif Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat praktik ADR dalam penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Indonesia berupa Arbitrase dalam kerangka MAP dalam P3B Indonesia ndash Meksiko dan Pembahasan dengan Tim Quality Assurance Pemeriksaan Tim QAP Hambatan dalam praktik arbitrase yaitu sifatnya yang optional posisinya dalam MAP biaya yang timbul dan tidak adanya ketentuan lebih lanjut Hambatan dalam pembahasan dengan Tim QAP yaitu konflik peran yang mempengaruhi impartiality dan neutrality Hasil penelitian menyarankan adanya ketentuan lebih lanjut mengenai arbitrase penambahan klausul arbitrase dalam P3B Indonesia dengan negara lainnya pergantian sumber daya Tim QAP perubahan dalam Undang undang KUP serta pengadopsian Accelerated Issue Resolution AIR dan Dispute Resolution Panel DRP sebagai ADR di Indonesia

---

This study discusses practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR and its issues in Indonesia rsquo s tax dispute resolution system The approach used is qualitative decsriptive method The result indicates arbitration in MAP framework contained in Indonesia ndash Mexico Tax Treaty and the Discussion with Examination Quality Assurance Team QAP Team as pratice of ADR in Indonesia Issues relating arbitration are its optional nature its position in MAP costs arised and lack of further regulation Issue in QAP Team is its lack of impartiality and neutrality The researcher suggests that further regulation of arbitration should be made additional arbitration clause in other Indonesia Tax Treaties is needed change of QAP Team should be considered change in General Tax Provision and Procedure Law should be made and AIR and DRP should be adopted as ADR in Indonesia "

"Conflict of interest importir dengan pemerintah dalam penentuan nilai pabean sebagai dasar perhitungan bea masuk menjadi persoalan internasional. Importir cenderung membayar bea masuk sekecil-kecilnya, sedangkan pemerintah cenderung memungut bea masuk sebesar-besarnya. Karena telah menjadi persoalan dunia dan memengaruhi keadilan, kepastian, dan kemanfaatan perdagangan internasional, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT telah membuat Article VII GATT sebagai acuan menghitung nilai pabean dengan tarif advalorem. Di Indonesia, Direktorat Jenderal Bea Cukai DJBC menemukan dan menganggap relatif banyak perhitungan nilai pabean oleh importir secara self assessment tidak tepat sehingga dilakukan koreksi atau penetapan. Sebaliknya, importir menganggap justru DJBC yang tidak tepat dalam menghitung nilai pabean sehingga importir mengajukan keberatan dan/atau banding ke Pengadilan Pajak. Sekitar 90 permohonan keberatan nilai pabean ditolak oleh lembaga keberatan DJBC dan sebaliknya lebih banyak permohonan banding nilai pabean dikabulkan oleh Pengadilan Pajak. Fakta itu menunjukkan kontradiksi perspektif perhitungan nilai pabean antara importir, DJBC, dan Hakim Pengadilan Pajak. Oleh karena itu, perlu diteliti faktor penyebabnya dan dicari solusinya melalui pertanyaan penelitian apakah penetapan nilai pabean di Indonesia telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Article VII GATT, bagaimana eksistensi lembaga keberatan beroep sebagai peradilan semu quasi rechtspraak , dan apakah Pengadilan Pajak dalam menyelesaikan sengketa nilai pabean memberikan keadilan, kepastian, dan kemanfaatan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, ditemukan bahwa implementasi perhitungan nilai pabean belum sepenuhnya sesuai dengan ketentuan GATT, lembaga keberatan belum berfungsi dengan baik, dan lembaga Pengadilan Pajak belum berperan sebagaimana mestinya. Oleh karena itu, disarankan agar dilakukan transformasi ketentuan nilai pabean, lembaga keberatan, dan lembaga banding. Di samping itu, perlu dilakukan perbaikan budaya hukum melalui internalisasi ketentuan nilai pabean terhadap importir, pejabat DJBC, dan Hakim Pengadilan Pajak. Sebagai bagian dari kekuasaan kehakiman, seyogianya kelembagaan Pengadilan Pajak sepenuhnya di bawah Mahkamah Agung namun hakimnya harus mempunyai keahlian hukum dan perpajakan. Sebagaimana ruang lingkup perpajakan lebih luas daripada ruang lingkup pajak maka nama Pengadilan Pajak disarankan diganti menjadi Pengadilan Perpajakan. Secara filosofis, perpajakan bukan lagi sebuah kewajiban warga negara, tetapi sebuah hak warga negara berpartisipasi untuk membangun negaranya.

---

Conflict of interest between importers and the government in the determination of customs value as a basis for the calculation of import duty has become an international issue. Importers tend to pay the lowest import duties, while the government tends to collect the maximum import duties. Since it has become a global issue and affects the fairness, certainty, and usefulness of international trade, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT has set out Article VII GATT as reference in calculating customs value by ad valorem rates. In Indonesia, the Directorate General of Customs DJBC finds and considers relatively large quantities of customs value reported by importers to be incorrect thus requiring correction or determination. On the other hand, importers consider that DJBC is not appropriate in determining the customs value as a result of which they file objection and/or appeal. Approximately ninety per cent of customs value objection applications are rejected by DGCE objection agencies while on the other hand the Tax Court tends to accept a greater number of customs value appeals. Such fact demonstrates the contradictory perspective in customs value calculation between importers, DJBC, and Tax Court Judges. Therefore, there is a need to examine the causal factors and seek solutions by answering the research questions, namely whether the determination of customs value in Indonesia has been in accordance with the provisions of Article VII GATT; the position of the objection agency beroep as quasi judiciary rechtspraak ; and whether in resolving customs value disputes the Tax Court provides justice, certainty, and expediency. Based on the research results, it has been found that the implementation of customs value calculation is not fully in accordance with the GATT provisions, the objection agencies are yet to be functioning properly, and the Tax Court is yet to fulfill its function properly. Therefore, it is advisable to transform customs value provisions, the objection body, as well as the appeals agency. In addition, it is necessary to improve the legal culture through internalization of customs value provisions among importers, DGCE officials, and Tax Court Judges. As part of its judicial powers, the institution of the Tax Court should be fully under the Supreme Court; however, judges need to possess legal and taxation skills. Considering that the scope of Taxation Perpajakan is broader than that of Taxes Pajak , it is recommended that the name Pengadilan Pajak Tax Court be changed to Pengadilan Perpajakan Taxation Court . Viewed from a philosophical perspective, taxation is no longer a citizen's duty, but rather a citizen's right to participate in developing his/her country."

"Surat Ketetapan Pajak yang dikeluarkan oleh fiskus pada dasarnya merupakan produk dari pejabat tata usaha negara.  Apabila wajib pajak tidak setuju atas SKP tersebut, maka sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan dapat diajukan upaya hukum. Untuk menganalisis dan mengetahui sejauh mana alur penyelesaian sengketa pajak yang berlaku selama ini, yaitu mengenai proses keberatan dan banding, serta kedudukan dari pengadilan pajak dalam sistem peradilan di Indonesia. Eksistensi pengadilan pajak di Indonesia sebagai salah satu lembaga pengadilan yang bersifat khusus diharapkan dapat berperan secara independen dalam penyelesaian sengketa perpajakan bagi pencari keadilan. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis-normatif dengan tipe deskriptif-analitik. Hasil dari penelitian ini mendapatkan simpulan bahwa alur penyelesaian sengketa dalam sistem perpajakan di Indonesia telah diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak dan Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Tidak terdapat upaya hukum kasasi sebagaimana pada peradilan umum lainnya, namun dikenal dengan Peninjauan Kembali yang diajukan pada Mahkamah Agung.

---

Tax Assessment Letter (SKP) issued by the tax authorities is basically a product of the state administration official. If the taxpayer does not agree to the SKP, according to the statutory regulations, legal remedies can be submitted. To analyze and find out the extent of the tax dispute settlement path that applies so far, namely regarding the objection and appeal process, as well as the position of the tax court in the justice system in Indonesia. The existence of a tax court in Indonesia as one of the specialized judicial institutions is expected to play an independent role in the resolution of tax disputes for justice seekers. The method used in this study uses a juridical-normative approach with descriptive-analytic type. The results of this study conclude that the flow of dispute resolution in the taxation system in Indonesia has been regulated in Act Number 14 of 2002 concerning Tax Courts and Act Number 28 of 2007 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures. There is no appeal against cassation as in other general courts, but it is known as a Review submitted to the Supreme Court."

"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"

"Pajak adalah semua jenis iuran yang dipungut oleh Pemerintah Pusat, ttrmasuk Bea Masuk dan Cukai dan iuran yang di Pungut Pemerintah Daerah. Sistem pemungutan Pajak yang dianut Indonesia adalah Self Assessment yaitu, suatu sistem pemungutan pajak yang memberikan wewenang, kepercayaan tanggung jawab kepada Wajib Pajak untuk menghitung, memperhitungkan, membayar, dan melaporkan sendiri besarnya pajak yang terutang. Dari sistem tersebut dapat menimbulkan sengketa antara Wajib Pajak dengan Dirjen Pajak, dalam ha! ini Wajib Pajak bertindak sebagai Penggugat/Pemohon Banding. Untuk maju ke proses Pengadilan Pajak, diperlukan Kuasa Hukum Surat Kuasa khusus bermeterai lengkap. Syarat untuk menjadi Kuasa Hukum menurut Pasal 34 UU Pengadilan Pajak adalah : Warga Negara Indonesia, mempunyai pengetahuan yang luas di bidang perpajakan dan persyaratan lain yang ditetapkan oleh Menteri. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa tidak semua orang dapat menjadi Kuasa Hukum untuk mewakili Wajib Pajak di Pengadilan Pajak, termasuk Advokat.

---

Tax is all types of contribution levied by Central Government, including Impori. Duties and Excise and contributions levied by Local Government. Tax Collection System followed by Indonesia is Self Assessment, where tax collection system authorizes Taxpayers to asses, calculate, pay, and file a self reporting the payable tax. From this system, that may raise dispute between Taxpayers and Government, in this case, among other parties is a Directorate General of Taxation, in this case Taxpayers may act as Plaintiff / Appellant. To Proceed in Tax Court, may also be represented by his / her Lawyer and present a duty stamped of Particular Power of Attorney. Requirement for acting as Attomey at Law in accordance to Article 34 of Taxation Act is: an Indonesian Citizen who has an adequate knowledge in the field of tax and other requirements specified by Minister. It is, therefore, concluded that all people may act as an Attomey at Law to represent Taxpayer in Tax Court, including an Advocate."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pelaksanaan penyelesaian sengketa banding tarif bea masuk di pengadilan pajak pada studi kasus PT. 3I di Pengadilan Pajak. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini dirinci dalam satu sub pokok permasalahan, yaitu Bagaimana pelaksanaan banding dalam penyelesaian sengketa tarif bea masuk pada PT.3I di Pengadilan Pajak. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa hendaknya Pemohon Banding mengajukan permohonan Peninjauan Kembali sebagai upaya hukum luar biasa ke Mahkamah Agung atas Putusan Pengadilan Pajak atas kelebihan pembayaran Bea Masuk dan Pajak dalam rangka Impor yang telah dibayarkan, serta kinerja dan kemampuan pengetahuan hukum dari para hakim yang harus ditingkatkan. Hal ini agar kepentingan semua pihak terpenuhi sehingga dapat tercapai rasa keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi masyarakat dan citra yang lebih baik bagi Pengadilan Pajak sebagai tempat mencari keadilan.

---

The concentration of the research is relating to the implementation of Import duty dispute appeal in tax court on case studies of PT. 3I in Tax Court. The main issue in this study is detailed in one main sub-problem, namely how to appeal in a dispute import duty tariffs on PT.3I in Tax Court. This study is qualitative research using descriptive approach method.

The results suggest that the applicant should appeal to apply for judicial review as an extraordinary remedy to the Supreme Court of Tax Court Decision on the excess payment of import duty and taxes on the import that has been paid, as well as the performance and capabilities of the legal knowledge of judges should be improved. In order for all parties interest are met so as to achieve a sense of justice and legal certainty for the community and a better image for the Tax Court as a place to seek justice."