Indonesia dan Uni Eropa telah mengambil langkah unilateral untuk menerapkan
pajak layanan digital. Skripsi ini mengkaji (i) pengaturan pajak layanan digital di
Indonesia dan Uni Eropa serta (ii) apakah pengaturan pajak layanan digital tersebut
melanggar kewajiban nondiskriminasi negara anggota WTO dalam GATS. Melalui
penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dan pendekatan perundang-undangan,
komparatif, dan kasus, dapat disimpulkan bahwa pertama, pajak layanan digital
dikenal di Indonesia sebagai pajak transaksi elektronik dan diatur dalam peraturan
perundang-undangan yang menerapkan kriteria kehadiran ekonomi signifikan. Di
Uni Eropa, pajak layanan digital diatur melalui Council Directives, di mana
pengaturan pengenaan pajak tersebut menggunakan metode ring-fencing dan
kriteria significant economic presence. Kedua, kewajiban nondiskriminasi dalam
GATS terdapat dalam Pasal II tentang Most-Favoured Nation dan Pasal XVII
tentang National Treatment serta yurisprudensi yang relevan dari putusan WTO.
Pengaturan pajak layanan digital Indonesia dan Uni Eropa tidak bersifat
diskriminatif, sebab berdasarkan indikator-indikator yang ada, tidak terbukti
adanya diskriminasi de jure maupun de facto. Saran berdasarkan kesimpulan
tersebut yaitu bagi Indonesia dan Uni Eropa untuk mempersiapkan bukti yang
menunjukkan tidak adanya perlakuan kurang menguntungkan terhadap negara
anggota WTO tertentu dalam praktik pengenaan pajak layanan digital oleh
Indonesia dan Uni Eropa apabila terdapat negara anggota yang mengajukan gugatan
diskriminasi ke WTO. Selanjutnya, apabila terdapat negara anggota yang
mengambil tindakan retaliasi, Indonesia dan Uni Eropa disarankan untuk
mengajukan gugatan diskriminasi ke WTO atas tindakan retaliasi tersebut.
Indonesia and the European Union (EU) have taken unilateral actions to implementdigital services tax. This thesis examines (ii) digital services tax regulation inIndonesia and the EU and (ii) whether the digital services tax regulation violatesthe non-discrimination obligation of WTO members according to the GATS.Through conducting a judicial normative legal research whilst applying a statutory,comparative and case-study approach, it can be concluded that firstly, digitalservices tax in Indonesia is known as an electronic transaction tax and is regulatedby law, which implements significant economic presence criteria. In the EuropeanUnion, digital services tax is regulated through the Council Directives, in which theregulation implements ring-fencing method as well as significant economicpresence criteria. Secondly, the non-discrimination obligations in GATS arepromulgated in Article II concerning Most-Favored Nation Treatment and ArticleXVII concerning National Treatment as well as relevant jurisprudence of WTOcase laws. Indonesia and the EU's digital services tax regulation are notdiscriminatory, because based on existing indicators, the existence of both de jureand de facto discrimination is not proven. The suggestion would be for Indonesiaand the EU to provide evidence that shows the absence of unfavorable treatment ofcertain WTO member states in digital services tax practices by Indonesia and theEU, in the event that there are member states who decides to challenge the measuresto the WTO. Subsequently, in the event that certain member states decide to takeretaliation measures, it is suggested that Indonesia and the EU challenge saidmeasure to the WTO.