Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Tesis ini meneliti ketentuan analisa kesebandingan pada ketentuan perpajakan transfer pricing di Indonesia dengan membandingka n ketentuan analisa kesebandingan di Indonesia dengan ketentuan Amerika Serikat dan India serta rekomendasi OECD, Penelitian juga menganalisa kesesuaian regulasi terkait analisa kesebandingan di Indonesia dengan asas-asas perpajakan (four maxims) serta kesesuaian ketentuan analisa kesebandingan antara Peraturan Direktur Jenderal Pajak (PER-43/PJ/2010) dengan ketentuan pelaksanaan pemeriksaan (S-153/PJ.04/2010). Penelitian berbentuk dekriptif kualitatif melalui studi literatur dan wawancara dengan nara sumber dari pihak fiskus. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa aspek-aspek di dalam ketentuan analisa kesebandingan (faktor-faktor, data pembanding, kewajiban, dokumentasi, sanksi) pada ketentuan perpajakan di Indonesia sudah mengikuti perkembangan dari best practice internasional walaupun belum terdapat ketentuan pelaksanaan yang rinci. Ditinjau dari kriteria safe harbour yang ada, ketentuan perpajakan terkait yaitu PER-43/PJ/2010 belum dapat mengakomodasi asas keadilan, kemudahan serta ekonomi baik bagi fiskus maupun wajib pajak. Adapun untuk asas kepastian hukum sendiri, masih belum terakomodasi secara mutlak karena belum terdapat ketentuan pelaksanaanyang rinci dari analisa kesebandingan. Dengan belum tersedianya Peraturan Menteri Keuangan yang mengatur ketentuan dokumentasi terkait transaksi hubungan istimewa menjadi hambatan dalam memberikan kepastian hukum bagi wajib pajak dalam melakukan kewajiban dokumentasi analisa kesebandingan sesuai PER-43/PJ/2010. Ketentuan PER-43/PJ/2010 telah sejalan S-153/PJ04/2010 di dalam aspek yang tercakup dalam kewajiban pelaksanaan analisa kesebandingan dan faktor analisa kesebandingan namun terdapat perbedaan dimana pada S-153/PJ/2010 terdapat permintaan data tertentu kepada wajib pajak dimana hal tersebut tidak diwajibkan pada PER-43/PJ/2010. ......Purposes of this research are to conduct analysis of Indonesia tax regulations regarding comparability analysis in transfer pricing by comparing Indonesia regulations with relevant regulations in United States of America, India and OECD recommendation; to analyze relevant tax regulation related to comparability analysis with taxation principle (“four maxims”); and to analyze whether Director General Of Tax Regulation (PER-43/PJ/2010) is align with Directorate General of Tax Letter for Transaction Arm’s Length Examination (S-153/PJ.04/2010). This study is using descriptive qualitative method, which conducted by literature study and interview to obtain the primary information. The analysis results provide that the relevant aspects (comparability factor, period and data comparable, tax payer liability, documentation, and penalty) in comparability analysis regulations have follow with which regulated in international best practice. Refer to safe harbour provision in PER-43/PJ/2010, research conclude that PER-43/PJ/2010 is not accommodate principle of equity among tax payers who have affiliated transaction; ease of administration principle; and economics principle for fiscal authority and tax payers. Further, compliance of principle of certainty, is not completely accommodated, since procedural regulation of comparability analysis not issued yet, and furthermore, absence of Minister of Finance Regulation that regulated documentation related to affiliated transactions is a of constraint in provide certainty of law for tax payers in doing tax compliance to conduct comparability analysis and prepare its documentation refer to PER-43/PJ/2010. Research provide other results that Per-43/PJ/2010 is in line with S-153/PJ/2010 in liability scope to conduct comparability analysis and comparability factors. Research found a difference of tax payers liability which in S-153/PJ/2010 required tax payers to provide certain data which in PER-43/PJ/2010 this is not included in tax payers liabilities provision.

Abstrak :
Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk menganalisis pengaturan mengenai tanggung jawab Direksi dan kaitannya dengan pelaksanaan doktrin business judgment rule dalam kepailitan Perseroan Terbatas menurut hukum positif di Indonesia, dan melakukan identifikasi serta analisa mengenai kemungkinan penerapan tanggung jawab pribadi Direksi dalam konsep perlindungan Safe Harbor on Insolvent Trading di Australia dalam praktik kepailitan perseroan di Indonesia. Bentuk penelitian yang akan Penulis gunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis-normatif, dan dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat kemungkinan penerapan ketentuan dalam pengaturan hukum kepailitan di Indonesia, yaitu dengan menambahkan unsur pembuktian pembebanan tanggung jawab pribadi Direksi atas kepailitan Perseroan yang diatur dalam Pasal 104 ayat (4) UU No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, dan dengan menambahkan ketentuan mengenai perlindungan terhadap beban tanggung jawab pribadi Direksi atas perbuatan Direksi tanpa persetujuan pengurus yang menimbulkan kewajiban setelah dimulainya penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Pasal 240 ayat (3) UUK-PKPU No. 37 Tahun 2004. Adanya kemungkinan penerapan tersebut merupakan bentuk perwujudan asas undang-undang kepailitan, bahwa undang-undang seyogyanya memberikan kesempatan restrukturisasi utang sebelum diambil putusan pernyataan pailit kepada Debitor yang masih memiliki usaha yang prospektif, dan untuk mendorong Direksi bertikad baik melaksanakan dengan sebaik-baiknya, tanpa dibayangi kekhawatiran harus bertanggung jawab secara pribadi atas kerugian Perseroan.
This thesis is aimed to analyze the regulations regarding Director’s liability and the implementation of business judgment rule doctrine in Bankruptcy of Limited Liability Company according to Indonesian positive law. This research is also aimed to identify the possibility of implementing Australian Corporate Insolvency Law regarding Safe Harbor Protection Principal on Insolvent Trading in practice of Indonesia Corporate Bankruptcy. The form of research used in this study is normative judicial research with typology of descriptive research. This thesis shown there’s a possibility on protecting Director’s personal liability from insolvent trading practice in Australian Corporate Insolvency Law to be applied in the regulation of Indonesian Bankruptcy Law, by to issue an additional regulation regarding element of proof on exception of Director’s liability on Bankruptcy of Limited Liability Company in accordance with Limited Liability Company Law No. 40/2007 (“Company Law”), and to issue an additional regulation regarding protection of Director’s liability for exercise Director’s powers without approval of administrator when Limited Liability Company in a state of Suspension of Payment in accordance with Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment Law No. 37/2004 (“Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment Law”). The possibility of implementing Safe Harbor Protection makes it necessary to issue an adequate regulation as an application of principal of Indonesian Bankruptcy Law that Bankruptcy Law supposedly providing company’s director a chance to take a reasonable steps to restructure and face the financial difficulties while the business of the company is still prospective, before put into state of bankruptcy, with purpose to encourage directors with good faith remain exercise their fiduciary duties in their absolute best without fear of personal liability.