Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pertimbangan yang mendasari perbedaan putusan Pengadilan Pajak PT A dan PT B atas sehubungan dengan identifikasi atas eksistensi dan kebenaran pembayaran royalti atas technology (know how) dan trademark serta kesesuaian putusan pengadilan tersebut dengan panduan arm’s length principle dalam OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. Penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah perusahaan distributor dapat membebankan biaya royalti atas technology (know how) dan trademark. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan jenis penelitian deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa yang membedakan hasil putusan pengadilan atas sengketa PT A dan PT B terkait sengketa pembayaran royalti atas technology (know how dan trademark antara lain: (1) hasil dari identifikasi atas eksistensi dan kebenaran pembayaran melalui pengujian kesepakatan dalam kontrak legal, (2) pembuktian atas substansi dan manfaat ekonomi pemanfaatan intangible property, serta (3) pembuktian bahwa tidak terdapat pajak berganda yang dikenakan atas pembayaran kompensasi pemanfaatan intangible property tersebut. Prosedur penerapan arm’s length principle juga telah dilakukan sesuai panduan OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines untuk memutuskan sengketa transfer pr.

---

This study aims to understand the underlying considerations of the Tax Court decisions of PT A and PT B related to identification of existence and validity of royalty payments on the technology (know how) and trademark also the conformity of those decision with the arm’s length principle in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines. This study also purpose to determine whether the distributor company could treated the royalty payment on technology (know how) and trademark as deductible expenses. This research uses a qualitative approach with descriptive research type. The results of this study conclude that the difference on tax court decision of PT A and PT B related to royalty payment technology (know how) and trademarks is due to: (1) the results of identification on existence and validity of royalty payments through examination on legal agreements, (2) proof of the substance and economic benefits on utilization of intangible property, and (3) proof that there is no double taxation imposed on the payment of compensation for the utilization of intangible property. The implementation procedures for the arm's length principle also have been made in accordance with OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines in order to resolve transfer pricing disputes."