[ABSTRAK
Dalam praktiknya, penerapan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakansering menimbulkan perbedaan interpretasi. Salah satunya adalah yang terjadi padakasus banding atas koreksi keuntungan penjualan kapal yang dianggap sebagaipenghasilan bagi BUT AML menurut ketentuan Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf c UU PPh.Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kesesuaian antara koreksi keuntunganpenjualan kapal dalam putusan banding BUT AML dengan effectively connectedincome principle. Tujuan kedua adalah untuk menganalisis kesesuaian dasar-dasarpertimbangan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Pajak dalam memutus sengketa bandingmenurut peraturan perundangan-undangan perpajakan yang berlaku. Secara umum,konsep yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah prinsip effectively connectedincome menurut UN Model dan OECD Model. Penelitian ini dilakukan denganpendekatan kualitatif, jenis penelitian deskriptif, dan teknik pengumpulan datamelalui studi kepustakaan dan penelitian lapangan (wawancara mendalam). Hasilpenelitian menunjukan bahwa koreksi keuntungan penjualan kapal yang dilakukanoleh Direktorat Jenderal Pajak tidak sesuai dengan effectively connected incomeprinciple dan dasar-dasar pertimbangan Majelis Hakim dalam memutus sengketabanding telah sesuai dengan peraturan perpajakan yang berlaku. Saran pertama daripenulis adalah adanya penegasan mengenai penghasilan Pasal 26 dan prinsipeffectively connected income yang dimaksud dalam Pasal 5 ayat 1 huruf (c) UUPPh, serta penegasan mengenai definisi harta di Indonesia dalam Pasal 26 ayat (2)UU PPh. Saran kedua, perlunya mengkaji sistem positive list yang diatur dalamperaturan pelaksana terkait penghasilan dari penjualan/pengalihan harta diIndonesia menurut Pasal 26 ayat (2) UU PPh.

---

ABSTRACT
In practice, the implementation of tax regulation often raises the differentinterpretation. One of the cases is the tax appeal case about the gain on vessel salecorrection regarded as an income for AML Permanent Establishment (PE) inaccordance with Income Tax Article (ITA) 5 Paragraph (1) Letter c. The purposesof this research are, first to analyze the suitability between the gain on vessel salecorrection that become a tax appeal case of AML PE and the effectively connectedincome principle. Second, this research analyzes the consideration basics of thejudges based on the prevailing tax regulations. This research uses the term ofeffectively connected income principle based on UN Model and OECD Model. Thisresearch also uses qualitative approach, descriptive as research type, and datacollection techniques through library and field research (in-depth interview). Theresult shows that the correction?s done by the DGT is not suitable with theeffectively connected income principle and the consideration basics of the judgesare compatible with the prevailing tax regulations. The first recommendation, thereare confirmation about the incomes in Article 26 and effectively connected incomeprinciple for the purpose of Article 5 Paragraph (1) Letter c, also the confirmationabout the definition of assets in Indonesia which are stated in Article 26 Paragraph(2) of Income Tax Law. The second recommendation, there is need to assess thepositive list system regulated in implementing regulation related with the incomefrom the sale/transfer of assets in Indonesia based on Article 26 Paragraph (2) ofIncome Tax Law., In practice, the implementation of tax regulation often raises the differentinterpretation. One of the cases is the tax appeal case about the gain on vessel salecorrection regarded as an income for AML Permanent Establishment (PE) inaccordance with Income Tax Article (ITA) 5 Paragraph (1) Letter c. The purposesof this research are, first to analyze the suitability between the gain on vessel salecorrection that become a tax appeal case of AML PE and the effectively connectedincome principle. Second, this research analyzes the consideration basics of thejudges based on the prevailing tax regulations. This research uses the term ofeffectively connected income principle based on UN Model and OECD Model. Thisresearch also uses qualitative approach, descriptive as research type, and datacollection techniques through library and field research (in-depth interview). Theresult shows that the correction’s done by the DGT is not suitable with theeffectively connected income principle and the consideration basics of the judgesare compatible with the prevailing tax regulations. The first recommendation, thereare confirmation about the incomes in Article 26 and effectively connected incomeprinciple for the purpose of Article 5 Paragraph (1) Letter c, also the confirmationabout the definition of assets in Indonesia which are stated in Article 26 Paragraph(2) of Income Tax Law. The second recommendation, there is need to assess thepositive list system regulated in implementing regulation related with the incomefrom the sale/transfer of assets in Indonesia based on Article 26 Paragraph (2) ofIncome Tax Law.]