Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKSektor pertambangan Batu Bara merupakan salah satu sektor utama penerimaan pajak negara, namun tingkat pertumbuhanya masih rendah sehingga dilakukan penegakan hukum melalui pemeriksaan. Salah satu pemeriksaan dilakukan atas SPT PPN PT X kemudian menimbulkan perbedaan interpretasi perlakuan PPN atas penyediaan bahan bakar. Sengketa ini sampai ke tahap banding di Pengadilan Pajak. Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kesesuaian putusan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Pajak atas sengketa PT X berdasarkan konsep PPN dan ketentuan perundang-undangan. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data berupa studi kepustakaan dan wawancara mendalam. Berdasarkan konsep PPN dan ketentuan perundang-undangan, penyerahan untuk kelebihan penggunaan bahan bakar subkontraktor termasuk pemakaian sendiri namun tidak dikenakan PPN karena bahan bakar dari Pertamina hanya dipungut PPN sekali. Pemungutan PPN pada PT X, kontraktor PKP2B Generasi I, juga sudah sesuai koridor perundang- undangan, sehingga putusan Majelis Hakim sudah sesuai. UU PPN perlu mengkaji mekanisme AFCA agar mengurangi terjadinya dispute.

---

ABSTRACTCoal Mining sector is one of state rsquo s prominent tax income, yet its growth still unpleasant so law enforcement are held throught an tax audit. As VAT Report of X Corp was audited, different interpreations in VAT treatment on fuel supply are emerged. This dispute are brought to appeal level in Tax Court. This thesis aims to analyze suitability Judges appeal decision to VAT Concept and Law. This research use qualitative approach with literature review and in depth interview as technique to collect data. Based on VAT Concept and Indonesian law, transfer fuel in consideration of subcontractors excessive usage is private use for productive aim so it is a taxable supplies. Based on prevailing law, it is not taxable supplies because VAT on fuel bought from Pertamina imposed once only. Imposing tax on PT X, as Coal Contract of Work has works according to Indonesian law concept, so Judge rsquo s appeal decision has mostly appropriate. It needs further study in AFCA mechanism to minimize disputes in field. "

"Sengketa pajak dapat terjadi karena adanya perbedaan interpretasi antara Wajib Pajak dan DJP. Perbedaan interpretasi tersebut terjadi baik terhadap peraturan perpajakan maupun kontrak transaksi. Penelitian studi kasus bermanfaat untuk mengatasi masalah pada situasi yang berbeda secara teknis dalam konteks kehidupan nyata secara kontemporer. Penelitian ini menggunakan studi kasus PT XYZ yang bertujuan untuk menganalisis konsep imbalan jasa teknik dan royalti, penerapannya menurut Wajib Pajak, DJP, dan Majelis Hakim, dan konsep imbalan jasa teknik dan royalti berdasarkan substance over form dan asas clarity. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan studi kepustakaan dan wawancara mendalam sebagai teknik pengumpulan data. Dalam peraturan perpajakan, terdapat irisan antara konsep imbalan jasa teknik dan royalti yang dapat menyebabkan sengketa pajak. Dalam menerapkan konsep imbalan jasa teknik dan royalti, Wajib Pajak menggunakan konsep active income dan passive income dan P3B Indonesia-Jepang, DJP menggunakan interpretasi perjanjian dan rujukan paragraph 11.6 OECD Commentary on Article 12, dan Majelis Hakim menggunakan konsep active income dan passive income dan P3B Indonesia-Jepang, serta keyakinan Hakim yang bersifat independen. Konsep imbalan jasa teknik dan royalti berdasarkan substance over form dan asas clarity, untuk meminimalisasi terjadinya sengketa pajak terkait dengan perbedaan interpretasi, maka seharusnya imbalan jasa teknik dan royalti didefinisikan di dalam peraturan perpajakan dengan membedakan secara jelas mengenai ruang lingkup aktivitas (scope of activities) terkait pemberian informasi dan bantuan tambahannya, kriteria yang memperhatikan adanya konsep active income dan passive income, dan adanya penegasan mengenai bentuk-bentuk jasa yang dapat dikategorikan sebagai bantuan tambahan atas pemberian know how.

---

Tax disputes can occur due to differences in interpretation between the Taxpayer and the Tax Authorities. The difference in interpretation occurs in both tax regulations and transaction contracts. Case study research is useful for addressing problems in technically different situations in contemporary real-life contexts. This research uses a case study PT XYZ which aims to analyze the concept of technical service fees and royalties, its application according to taxpayers, Tax Authorities, and the Judges, and the concept of technical service fees and royalties based on substance over form and the principle of clarity. This research uses a qualitative approach with literature study and in-depth interviews as data collection techniques. In tax regulations, there is a wedge between the concept of technical service fees and royalties that can lead to tax disputes. In applying the concept of technical service fees and royalties, Taxpayer uses the concepts of active income and passive income and Indonesia-Japan Tax Treaty, Tax Authorities use the interpretation of agreements and references to paragraph 11.6 OECD Commentary on Article 12, and Judges use the concepts of active income and passive income and Indonesia-Japan Tax Treaty. The concept of technical service fees and royalties based on substance over form and the principle of clarity, to minimize the tax disputes related to differences in interpretation, then technical service fees and royalties should be defined in tax regulations by clearly distinguishing the scope of activities related to the provision of information and ancillary services, criteria based on the concept of active income and passive income, and the affirmation of forms of services that can be categorized as ancillary services for the provision of know how"