Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Salah satu strategi manajemen perpajakan yang umumnya dilakukan antar intra grup perusahaan multinasional adalah transfer pricing, tetapi seringkali memiliki konotasi negatif karena erat kaitannya dengan penghindaran pajak. Perkembangan teknologi dan industri berbasis know-how juga mendorong peningkatan transaksi yang berupa intangible asset dan jasa. Kedua jenis transaksi tersebut seringkali menimbulkan sengketa antara Wajib Pajak dan Direktorat Jenderal Pajak sehingga dapat menimbulkan koreksi atas pelaporan pajak perusahaan dan mendorong Wajib Pajak untuk mengajukan keberatan dan kemudian permohonan banding ke Pengadilan Pajak. Penulisan karya ilmiah ini menganalisis kasus banding transfer pricing atas intangible property dan jasa intra grup untuk menemukan faktor penyebab sengketa dan kemudian mendeskripsikan kajian yang dilakukan Majelis Hakim dalam memutus sengketa. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan kualitatif-deskriptif melalui analisis 7 (tujuh) kasus banding tahun 2005-2012. Setelah dilakukan analisis terhadap kasus-kasus tersebut, Penulis menemukan bahwa terdapat beberapa faktor penyebab sengketa, yaitu perbedaan data, perbedaan interpretasi data, dan perbedaan interpretasi hukum. Selain itu, ditemukan pula bahwa terdapat beberapa aspek yang menjadi pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam memutus sengketa, yaitu kelengkapan dan kualitas dokumen pendukung, keterangan dari tiap pihak, dan pengetahuan Hakim.

---

One of the strategies commonly practiced by MNC groups internally is transfer pricing, which primary purpose is to enhance the efficiency of business process. However, this method often causes negative impression since it is closely related to tax avoidance issue. The rapid growth of technology and know-how based industry also boost transactions involving intangible assets and services. Disputes between Tax Payer and Directorate General of Tax (DGT) may arise when determining the nature of those transactions. Corrections made by DGT may lead to objection by Tax Payer and will be proceeded to Tax Court if remains unsatisfied with the result. This study examines 7 (seven) appeals of transfer pricing case from 2005-2012 related to intangible property and intra-group service to find the factors causing the dispute and describe considerations taken by Judges to make the decision by using qualitative-descriptive approach. The result shows that using different data and having different interpretation on data and law may have caused the disputes. Apart from that, there are several aspects that may affect Judges consideration, such as the completeness and quality of proof documents, arguments from each party, and Judges knowledge.

Abstrak :
Penentuan metode harga transfer yang tepat merupakan salah satu langkah penting dalam penerapan Arm’s Length Principle. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis penerapan Metode CUP atas transaksi pemanfaatan intangible property oleh PT X dalam pengujian arm’s length principle, ditinjau dari teori Arm’s Length Principle, Intangible Property, dan CUP Method. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data studi literatur dan studi lapangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan metode CUP untuk pengujian arm’s length principle atas pemanfaatan intangible property PT X telah dilakukan dengan memperhatikan kesesuaian metode CUP dengan transaksi serta langkah pengujian arm’s length principle untuk transaksi intangibles berdasarkan regulasi. Metode CUP menjadi metode yang paling sesuai karena pengujian bersifat direct ke tarif royalti sehingga menghasilkan analisis yang andal, namun kekurangannya adalah tidak dapat memperoleh agreement yang benar-benar sebanding. Selain itu, dalam TP Doc yang dibuat oleh PT X ditemukan potensi akan memunculkan isu terkait pengujian eksistensi know-how berupa pemberian pelatihan karyawan yang berpotensi dianggap bukan termasuk klasifikasi know-how melainkan sebagai jasa, serta penggunaan data pembanding dengan beragam base yang tidak dilakukan penyesuaian kesebandingan oleh PT X. ......The determination of the most appropriate method is one of the important steps in the application of the arm’s length principle. This study aims to analyze the application of the CUP Method for the use of intangible property by PT X in arm's length principle testing, reviews it from Arm's Length Principle, Intangible Property, and CUP Method. This study used a qualitative approach with field studies data collection techniques and literature study. The results showed that the application of the CUP method for the use of intangible PT X has been done by paying attention to the suitability of the CUP method with transaction and arm’s length principle testing step for intangibles transaction based on the regulations. The CUP method is the most appropriate because the analysis directly to the royalty rate is resulting in a reliable analysis. But the drawback is that isn’t being able to obtain a truly comparable agreement. Besides, in TP Doc PT X, the researcher found the potential will raise the issue related to existence of know-how in the form of providing employee training that’s potentially be considered not including the classification of know-how but as a service, and the use of comparative data with different bases that are not adjusted in comparability analysis by PT X.

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Transfer pricing bagi Indonesia merupakan tantangan besar untuk memaksimalkan penerimaan negara, karena tercatat oleh otoritas pajak Indonesia bahwa setiap tahunnya Indonesia dirugikan 1300 Trilliun Rupiah karena praktik transfer pricing ini. Bagi Jepang perhatian khusus diberikan untuk penanganan transfer pricing karena tumpuan penerimaan negara Jepang berada pada sektor perpajakan. Tantangan baru dalam hal transfer pricing adalah adanya praktik transfer pricing atas aspek intangible property yang ternyata banyak dilakukan oleh MNC yang saat ini rata-rata basis usahanya adalah intangible property. Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengetahui cara penindakan abuse of Transfer pricing dan cara penindakan praktek transfer pricing atas intangible property di Indonesia dan Jepang, serta untuk mengetahui apa sajakah yang menjadi kesulitan DJP Indonesia dan NTA Jepang dalam menangani praktik transfer pricing atas intangible property. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif, dan hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penindakan transfer pricing di Indonesia berpedoman pada PER DJP Nomor PER-22/PJ/2013 dan SE DJP Nomor SE-50/PJ/2013, sedangkan Jepang berpedoman pada Special Measures Tax Law 1986 yang diikuti NTA Administrative Guidelines, dan Indonesia belum memiliki aturan khusus penindakan transfer pricing atas intelectual property, sedangkan Jepang telah memiliki referensi khusus untuk menindak transfer pricing atas intelectual property, serta diketahui bahwa kesulitan yang dihadapi DJP dan NTA dalam mengatasi transfer pricing atas intangible property sama yaitu kesulitan dalam

---

ABSTRACT
Transfer pricing for Indonesia is a big challenge to maximize revenues, as recorded by the Indonesian tax authorities that each year 1300 Trillion Indonesian Rupiah harmed because of this transfer pricing practices. For Japan special attention is given to the handling of transfer pricing as the foundation of Japan's revenues are in the taxation sector. New challenges in terms of transfer pricing is the practice of transfer pricing aspects of intangible property, on which there are many MNCs are currently performed because the average base of their business is intangible property. This study aimed to determine how enforcement abuse of transfer pricing and how enforcement of transfer pricing practices on intangible property in Indonesia and Japan, as well as to know what are some difficulties Directorate General Of Tax Indonesia and National Tax Agency Japan dealing with transfer pricing practices on intangible property. This study uses normative legal research methods, and the results of this study indicate that the transfer pricing enforcement in Indonesia based on the PER DGT No. PER-22 / PJ / 2013 and SE DGT No. SE-50 / PJ / 2013, while Japan based on the Special Measures tax Law in 1986 which followed by the NTA Administrative Guidelines, and Indonesia does not have specific rules on transfer pricing enforcement on intelectual property, while Japan has had special reference to crack down transfer pricing on intelectual property aspect, and it is known that the difficulties faced by the Directorate General of Tax and National Tax Agency in dealing with transfer pricing on intangible property aspect is the same, and that is the difficulty in determining a reasonable price and the difficulty in finding a reasonable comparison. ;Transfer pricing for Indonesia is a big challenge to maximize revenues, as recorded by the Indonesian tax authorities that each year 1300 Trillion Indonesian Rupiah harmed because of this transfer pricing practices. For Japan special attention is given to the handling of transfer pricing as the foundation of Japan's revenues are in the taxation sector. New challenges in terms of transfer pricing is the practice of transfer pricing aspects of intangible property, on which there are many MNCs are currently performed because the average base of their business is intangible property. This study aimed to determine how enforcement abuse of transfer pricing and how enforcement of transfer pricing practices on intangible property in Indonesia and Japan, as well as to know what are some difficulties Directorate General Of Tax Indonesia and National Tax Agency Japan dealing with transfer pricing practices on intangible property. This study uses normative legal research methods, and the results of this study indicate that the transfer pricing enforcement in Indonesia based on the PER DGT No. PER-22 / PJ / 2013 and SE DGT No. SE-50 / PJ / 2013, while Japan based on the Special Measures tax Law in 1986 which followed by the NTA Administrative Guidelines, and Indonesia does not have specific rules on transfer pricing enforcement on intelectual property, while Japan has had special reference to crack down transfer pricing on intelectual property aspect, and it is known that the difficulties faced by the Directorate General of Tax and National Tax Agency in dealing with transfer pricing on intangible property aspect is the same, and that is the difficulty in determining a reasonable price and the difficulty in finding a reasonable comparison. ;Transfer pricing for Indonesia is a big challenge to maximize revenues, as recorded by the Indonesian tax authorities that each year 1300 Trillion Indonesian Rupiah harmed because of this transfer pricing practices. For Japan special attention is given to the handling of transfer pricing as the foundation of Japan's revenues are in the taxation sector. New challenges in terms of transfer pricing is the practice of transfer pricing aspects of intangible property, on which there are many MNCs are currently performed because the average base of their business is intangible property. This study aimed to determine how enforcement abuse of transfer pricing and how enforcement of transfer pricing practices on intangible property in Indonesia and Japan, as well as to know what are some difficulties Directorate General Of Tax Indonesia and National Tax Agency Japan dealing with transfer pricing practices on intangible property. This study uses normative legal research methods, and the results of this study indicate that the transfer pricing enforcement in Indonesia based on the PER DGT No. PER-22 / PJ / 2013 and SE DGT No. SE-50 / PJ / 2013, while Japan based on the Special Measures tax Law in 1986 which followed by the NTA Administrative Guidelines, and Indonesia does not have specific rules on transfer pricing enforcement on intelectual property, while Japan has had special reference to crack down transfer pricing on intelectual property aspect, and it is known that the difficulties faced by the Directorate General of Tax and National Tax Agency in dealing with transfer pricing on intangible property aspect is the same, and that is the difficulty in determining a reasonable price and the difficulty in finding a reasonable comparison. ;Transfer pricing for Indonesia is a big challenge to maximize revenues, as recorded by the Indonesian tax authorities that each year 1300 Trillion Indonesian Rupiah harmed because of this transfer pricing practices. For Japan special attention is given to the handling of transfer pricing as the foundation of Japan's revenues are in the taxation sector. New challenges in terms of transfer pricing is the practice of transfer pricing aspects of intangible property, on which there are many MNCs are currently performed because the average base of their business is intangible property. This study aimed to determine how enforcement abuse of transfer pricing and how enforcement of transfer pricing practices on intangible property in Indonesia and Japan, as well as to know what are some difficulties Directorate General Of Tax Indonesia and National Tax Agency Japan dealing with transfer pricing practices on intangible property. This study uses normative legal research methods, and the results of this study indicate that the transfer pricing enforcement in Indonesia based on the PER DGT No. PER-22 / PJ / 2013 and SE DGT No. SE-50 / PJ / 2013, while Japan based on the Special Measures tax Law in 1986 which followed by the NTA Administrative Guidelines, and Indonesia does not have specific rules on transfer pricing enforcement on intelectual property, while Japan has had special reference to crack down transfer pricing on intelectual property aspect, and it is known that the difficulties faced by the Directorate General of Tax and National Tax Agency in dealing with transfer pricing on intangible property aspect is the same, and that is the difficulty in determining a reasonable price and the difficulty in finding a reasonable comparison. , Transfer pricing for Indonesia is a big challenge to maximize revenues, as recorded by the Indonesian tax authorities that each year 1300 Trillion Indonesian Rupiah harmed because of this transfer pricing practices. For Japan special attention is given to the handling of transfer pricing as the foundation of Japan's revenues are in the taxation sector. New challenges in terms of transfer pricing is the practice of transfer pricing aspects of intangible property, on which there are many MNCs are currently performed because the average base of their business is intangible property. This study aimed to determine how enforcement abuse of transfer pricing and how enforcement of transfer pricing practices on intangible property in Indonesia and Japan, as well as to know what are some difficulties Directorate General Of Tax Indonesia and National Tax Agency Japan dealing with transfer pricing practices on intangible property. This study uses normative legal research methods, and the results of this study indicate that the transfer pricing enforcement in Indonesia based on the PER DGT No. PER-22 / PJ / 2013 and SE DGT No. SE-50 / PJ / 2013, while Japan based on the Special Measures tax Law in 1986 which followed by the NTA Administrative Guidelines, and Indonesia does not have specific rules on transfer pricing enforcement on intelectual property, while Japan has had special reference to crack down transfer pricing on intelectual property aspect, and it is known that the difficulties faced by the Directorate General of Tax and National Tax Agency in dealing with transfer pricing on intangible property aspect is the same, and that is the difficulty in determining a reasonable price and the difficulty in finding a reasonable comparison. ]

Abstrak :
Sulitnya identifikasi khususnya dalam menentukan kondisi kewajaran pada transaksi know-how seringkali menimbulkan sengketa, hal tersebut terlihat pada tahun 2016 hingga tahun 2020 terdapat sembilan putusan banding sengketa pajak terkait pembayaran royalti atas pemanfaatan Know-How kepada pihak afiliasi, dengan permasalahan yang cenderung sama. Penelitian ini akan menganalisis permasalahan dan kendala yang terjadi atas transaksi pembayaran royalti atas pemanfaatan Know-How dan memberikan solusi untuk mencegah terjadinya sengketa di kemudian hari. Perbedaan penelitian ini dengan penelitian sebelumnya terletak pada pembahasan kendala yang dialami oleh para pihak. Objek penelitian adalah sembilan putusan banding terkait pembayaran royalti atas pemanfaatan Know-How kepada pihak afiliasi pada tahun 2016 hingga tahun 2020. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode studi kasus dengan pendekatan kualitatif. Teknik pengumpulan data yaitu dokumentasi dan wawancara, wawancara dilakukan kepada lima responden yang terdiri dari dua pihak konsultan pajak, satu pihak akademisi, dan dua pihak DJP pemilihan responden dilakukan untuk memperoleh sudut pandang yang sesuai dengan masing-masing pihak agar tidak condong pada pihak tertentu. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa permasalahan utama dalam transaksi pembayaran royalti atas pemanfaatan Know-How adalah eksistensi atau manfaat dan eksistensi. Kendala yang menjadi penyebab permasalahan tersebut adalah sulitnya pembuktian eksistensi atas Know-How, metode penetapan harga wajar, terbatasnya data pembanding, perbedaan pendapat antara Wajib Pajak dan Fiskus, ketidakselarasan dasar hukum yang. Rekomendasi bagi Wajib Pajak antara lain menyusun dokumentasi yang mendukung eksistensi atas keberadaan intangible property khususnya Know-How, menggunakan analisis FAR sebagai dokumen pendukung dalam penentuan metode penetapan harga wajar, mengajukan Advance Pricing Agreement. Rekomendasi untuk DJP antara lain melakukan update regulasi yang mengatur tentang pedoman pemeriksaan, dan memasukan pertimbangan yurisprudensi pada setiap regulasi yang terkait dengan intangible property. ......The difficulty of identification, especially in determining the condition of reasonableness in know-how transactions, often leads to disputes. It can be seen that from 2016 to 2020, there were nine appeal decisions in tax disputes related to the payment of royalties for the use of Know-How to affiliated parties, with problems that tend to be the same. This study will analyze the problems and obstacles in royalty payment transactions using Know-How and provide solutions to prevent disputes in the future. The difference between this study and the previous research lies in discussing the obstacles the parties experienced. The object of the study was nine appeal rulings related to the payment of royalties for the use of Know-How to affiliates from 2016 to 2020. This research uses the case study method with a qualitative approach. The data collection technique, namely documentation and interviews, interviews were conducted with five respondents consisting of two tax consultant parties, one academic party, and two DGT parties, the selection of respondents was carried out to obtain an appropriate point of view with each party so as not to lean towards a certain party. The results showed that the main problem in royalty payment transactions for Know-How is existence or benefit and existence. The obstacles that cause these problems are the difficulty of proving the existence of Know-How, reasonable pricing methods, limited comparative data, differences of opinion between taxpayers and Fiscus, and misalignment of the legal basis. Recommendations for taxpayers include compiling documentation that supports the existence of the intangible property, especially Know-How, using FAR analysis as a supporting document in determining appropriate pricing methods, and submitting an Advance Pricing Agreement. Recommendations for the DGT include updating regulations governing examination guidelines and including jurisprudence considerations in every regulation related to intangible property

Abstrak :
Intangible assets atau a!ctiva tidak berwujud adalah elemen kunci dalam perekonomian yang berbasis ilmu pengetabuan dan merupakan sumber daya yang panting bagi keunggulan daya saing bisnis perusabaan. Perusabaan-perusabaan yang mempergunakan asset-aset intelektual yang tinggi seeara substansial, merupakan pelaku dalarn bisnis modem yang dikenal sebagai modem economy. Saat ini, di negara-negara maju, faktor-faktor produksi yang paling penting telah beralih kepada se.suatu yang tidak kasat mata (invisible). Faktor-faktor tersebut adalah Intangible assets yang juga sering disebut sebagai intellectual assets atau intangibles, diantaranya : brand, reputation, trademarks, software, R&D, patent. SDM skills, strategy, process quality, supplier and customer relationship, dan lain-lain. Aset-aset tidak berwujud ini memberikan kontribusi sangat besar bagi peningkatan daya saing perusahaan dalam industri. Pengenaan royalty fee telah menjadi hal yang umum digunakan oleb perusabaan yang mentransfer intangible property-nya kepada perusabaan lain tanpa memandang pihak ketiga, anak perusabaan atau afiliasinya. Bagi otoritas pajak, penting untuk memfokuskan perhatiannya terhadap intangible asset dan menghendaki perusabaan-perusahaan tersebut mengenaksn royalti kepada anak perusaltaannya atas penggunaan intangible property mereka dengan arm's length principle. Perusahaan· perusabaan multinasional dalam rangka meminimalkan hehan pajak seeara grup usaba cenderung melakukan tax planning, terkait dengan aliran pengenaan royalti atas penggunaan merck oleh semua anak perusahaan dan afiliasinya yang tersebar di beberapa negara dengan jenis perlakuan pajak yang berbeda-hoda pula. Perencanaan tentang negara domisili yang paling efektif dan efisien bagi portofolio sering merupakan faktor penting. Dari analisis yang dilakukan terbadap vmiabel-vmiabel yang menentukan daya redam regulasi pajak Indonesia terbadap praktek transfer pricing atas intangible property, disimpulkan sebagai berikut: (a) Indonesia belum memiliki peraturan yang memberikan perhatian kbnsus terhadap intangible property. Hanya terdapat aturan berupa dafta! aktiva tidak berwujud atau kbnsusnya intangible property yang berl