Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Government needed more income to raise the national budget. They issued instruments to collect income from citizen through debt and foreign currency. Government released Governmental Bonds for domestic market, which sold in retail (ORI) and for international market in foreign currency. Government also presented a law execution regulation to give certainty for the consumers or the taxpayers.Governmental Regulation Number 6 which published in 2002 distinguished the tax procedure for the bonds which imposed only on transactions tradable and reportable to the stock exchange. Income derived or taken from obligation transaction should be based on a global taxation. While, for the international bonds were given the facilities by the government. We would assume that there was an inequality between the bonds for domestic market and for international market. In global taxation, we should not differentiate the income by the source.This research used a quantitative descriptive as the research method. The type and data collection techniques used (1) literature research including on various taxation regulations and another related documents and (2) field research using interviews with such related parties as tax academicians, government as issuer and regulator. They gave several opinion which created differences in equity perspective.Government figured the debt as the best instrument to raise government income. They considered that attracting foreign investor by giving them tax facility was necessary to raise the budget. They named their policy as their budgeting and regulating function. But, we should notice that domestic investor might think the inequality of the tax burden.Therefore, it was suggested to make a comprehensive and equal policy. Based on tax principle, that tax should be fair and equal. It became fair that tax imposed on the income earned from the same source (instrument) equally. If one of them was given the facility, so the other should be given the same facility."

"Pengenaan Pajak Kendaraan Bermotor atas Alat Berat dari awal diterapkan menimbulkan berbagai polemik di masyarakat. Hingga pada akhir 2017 keluar putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor Put-15/PUU-XV/2017 yang membatalkan pengenaan pajak kendaraaan bermotor atas alat berat. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan alasan ditolaknya uji materi terhadap pengenaan pajak kendaraan bermotor atas alat berat pada tahun 2012, alasan dikabulkannya uji materi terhadap Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2009 tentang Lalu Lintas dan Angkutan Jalan pada tahun 2015, alasan dikabulkannya uji materi kembali terhadap pengenaan pajak kendaraan bermotor atas alat berat pada tahun 2017, serta mengalisis perlakuan pajak kendaraan bemotor atas alat berat pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor Put-15/PUU-XV/2017.Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data wawancara mendalam dan metode analisis data kualitatif. Pihak pemilik alat berat sebaiknya tetap berkontribusi dalam pengenaan pajak kendaraaan bermotor atas berat, sebagaimana ditegaskan dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi nomor Put-15/PUU-XV/2017 bahwa selama masa tenggang waktu 3 (tiga) tahun, alat berat masih dapat dikenakan pajak. selain itu, Direktorat Jenderal Perimbangan Keuangan sebaiknya melibatkan seluruh pemangku kepentingan dalam perumusan kebijakan pajak terhadap alat berat kedepannya

---

The imposition of motor vehicle tax on heavy equipment which has been applied from the beginning generate various polemics in Indonesia. At the end of 2017, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia declared The Constitutional Court Judgement Number Put-15/PUU-XV/2017, which cancelled the imposition of motor vehicle tax on heavy equipment that has been applied before. This study aims to explain the reasons why there was rejection of material test on imposition of motor vehicle tax on heavy equipment in 2012, the reasons why there was granting of judical review on Law Number 22 2009 on traffic and road transport in 2015, The reasons why there was re-examination granting of materials against the imposition of motor vehicle tax on heavy equipment in 2017, and analyze the treatment of motor vehicle tax on heavy equipment after The Constitutional Court Judgement Number Put-15/PUU-XV/2017.

This study used a qualitative approach with in-depth interview data collection techniques and qualitative data analysis methods. The owners of heavy equipment should still contribute to the imposition of heavy motor vehicle taxes, as defined in the decision of the Constitutional Court of Put-15/PUU-XV/2017 that for a period of 3 (three) years, the equipment may still be subject to tax. In addition, Directorate General of Fiscal Balance should engage all stakeholders in making the tax policy on future heavy equipment"

"Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis perlakuan pajak atas cryptocurrency di beberapa negara sebagai dasar rekomendasi perumusan perlakuan pajak atas cryptocurrency di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan studi kasus dengan metodologi kualitatif. Data yang dianalisis dalam penelitian ini terdiri dari data sekunder berupa dokumen perlakuan perpajakan di Singapura, Amerika Serikat, dan Australia serta data primer berupa wawancara kepada narasumber dari DJP, konsultan pajak, dan wajib pajak. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa keuntungan atas transaksi cryptocurrency merupakan objek pajak penghasilan yang umumnya dikenakan tarif normal atau dikenakan capital gain tax tergantung tujuan kepemilikannya. Penyerahan cryptocurrency di beberapa negara bukan merupakan objek PPN. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan agar DJP membuat aturan khusus yang menjelaskan bagaimana definisi, pengakuan, dan penilaian atas cryptocurrency. Pengenaan PPh final maupun PPh normal dapat dikenakan atas transaksi cryptocurrency berdasarkan dari dimana transaksi dilakukan. Mengevaluasi perlakuan pajak di banyak negara, penyerahan cryptocurrency di Indonesia sebaiknya dibebaskan atau dikecualikan dari pengenaan PPN.

---

This study aims to analyze the tax treatment of cryptocurrencies in several countries as a basis for recommendations for formulating tax treatment of cryptocurrencies in Indonesia. This research uses a case study approach with a qualitative methodology. The data analyzed in this study consisted of secondary data in the form of tax treatment documents in Singapore, the United States, and Australia as well as primary data in the form of interviews with sources from the DGT, tax consultants, and taxpayers. The results show that profits from cryptocurrency transactions are objects of income tax which are generally subject to normal income tax rates or subject to capital gains tax depending on the purpose of ownership. Supply of cryptocurrency in some countries is not subject to VAT (GST). This study recommends that the DGT make special rules that explain how the definition, recognition, and valuation of cryptocurrencies. Final income tax and normal income tax can be imposed on cryptocurrency transactions based on where the transaction is made. Evaluating tax treatment in many countries, cryptocurrency supplies in Indonesia should be exempted or exempt from VAT."