Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis bagaimana seharusnya proses penyelesaian sengketa pajak melalui Mutual Agreement Procedure terkait dengan proses keberatan dan banding serta keterkaitan antara hasil Mutual Agreement procedure dengan mekanisme pasal 16 dan 36 Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. MAP merupakan sarana bagi dua otoritas pajak yang mengadakan P3B untuk menyelesaikan kasus pengenaan pajak yang tidak sesuai dengan maksud dan tujuan P3B, MAP digunakan sebagai sarana untuk berunding diantara negara mitra P3B dan sebagai sarana bagi wajib pajak untuk menghilangkan pengenaan pajak berganda internasional. Hasil Penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa, hasil MAP yang berbeda dengan hasil keputusan keberatan, maka hasil keputusan keberatan tersebut dapat ditinjau kembali tetapi jika hasil banding telah keluar, hasil banding tersebut tidak dapat diubah karena mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap, cara yang ditempuh wajib pajak adalah dengan mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) ke Mahkamah Agung, Hasil penelitian ini menyarankan agar perlunya penyempurnaan ketentuan MAP dalam ketentuan domestik, aturan mengenai prosedur MAP perlu disempurnakan lagi. Guna memberikan kepastian hukum bagi wajib pajak perlu diterapkannya prinsip "lis alibi pendens" pada aturan domestik dan wajib pajak mempunyai hak untuk menerima atau menolak MAP.

---

The Objective of research are to identify and analize how should the process of resolution of dispute in tax through the Mutual Agreement Procedure relating to objection and appeals process and relationship between the Mutual Agreement procedure with the mechanism of article 16 and 36 of the General Provision and Tax Procedures. The approach of research is qualitative while the method is descriptive. MAP is the two of tax authorities to resolve the case entered tax treaty in taxation not accordance with the purpose and objective of tax treaty. MAP is negotiation between tax treaty partner and for taxpayers to eliminate international double taxation.

The result of this research concluded that the result of the MAP different with the result of an objection decision, so the result of the objection may be reviewed, but if the appeal had gone out, the outcome of such appeal can not be changed because they have permanent legal force, the way in which the taxpayer is to ask the judicial reviewto the supreme court. The result of this research suggest the need for improvement in terms of domestic MAP Provision, rules about the MAP procedures need to be refined again. In order to provide legal certainty for taxpayers need the application of the principle of "lis alibi pendens" on domestic rule."

"An Overview on The Returning of Payment Excess of Value Added Tax Arranged in Article 17C Law Number 16 The Year 2000 About Ordinary Implementation and Ethic of TaxationNowadays, the effort to increase tax acceptance is an urgent one. It is caused either by the uncertainty of oil and gas acceptance or the difficulty and the risk to get foreign loan. The tendency triggers the government to dig out and to maximize the acceptance from tax sector. One of them is done by the completion of regulation in the field of taxation while keeping in mind with the principles of fairness, Law assurance, legality and simplicity.The implementation of tax reform 2000 still undergoes many handicaps emerging both from the government. Who doesn't often have coordination in preparing the implementation regulation and lazy obliged taxpayers to implement or make use of taxation rules, which have been established smie they are often in a disadvantageous position. The handicap also takes place in the implementation of article 17C about Ordinary Implementation and Ethic of Taxation especially in the completion process of restitution of value added tax since in one side the government is willing to give a quick service in the restitution process but in the implementation regulation which have been released.The goal of this thesis writing is to know factors which affect the effectives of policy in giving the facility of returning the excess preliminary of value added tax as set in article 17C about Ordinary Implementation and Ethic of Taxation and further to analyze factors in order to be able to overcome the emerging problems.The research method done in this thesis writing is analytical descriptive method with data collecting technique is library research and field research through serious interview by using interview guideline to related persons and questionnaire distribution to 42 obedient obliged taxpayers which are listed in tax service offices in the area of Kanwil DJP Jakarta Khusus.From the discussion result we've got a conclusion that the handicap of the effectiveness of policy in giving the facility of returning the excess preliminary of valve added tax as established in article 17 C about Ordinary Provision and Taxation Procedure is primarily caused by the requirement or the criteria of obedient established is too heavy and the taxation section is too high if fiscal correction in post audit is found.To implement the facility policy of tax access preliminary returning well, the requirement or criteria in establishing obedient obliged taxpayers should be reoverwied and so should the regulation of administration section impalement in the form of 100% rise as established in article 17 C paragraph 5 about General Provision and Taxation Procedure.Bibliography = 40 references, 8 regulations, 4 scientific works 1 seminar papers (1971 - 2004)"

"Pajak bersifat memaksa dan dapat dipaksakan. Disamping kewajiban, Wajib Pajak juga diberikan hak-hak. Wajib Pajak mempunyai hak yang mendasar yaitu mengajukan Keberatan, Banding dan Gugatan. Gugatan diatur dalam pasal 23 Undang-Undang tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Untuk petunjuk pelaksanaan diatur dalam Pasal 37 Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 74 tahun 2011. Hal-hal yang dapat diajukan sebagai Gugatan diatur pada pasal 23 Undang- Undang tentang Ketentuan Umum Perpajakan yang memberikan secara luas kepada Wajib Pajak mengenai hal-hal yang dapat diajukan Gugatan. Sementara dalam PP No. 74 tahun 2011 sebagai Petunjuk Pelaksanaan dari Undang-Undang KUP tersebut dalam Pasal 37 menyebutkan tentang Gugatan yang tidak dapat diajukan atau adanya pembatasan mengenai hal-hal yang bisa diajukan Gugatan. Dengan demikian Undang-Undang sendiri memberikan rumusan yang lebih luas mengenai apa saja yang diajukan sebagai gugatan, tetapi di Peraturan Pemerintah dibatasi hal-hal yang tidak bisa diajukan sebagai Gugatan.

---

Taxation is coercive and can be enforced. Besides liability, the taxpayer is also granted rights. Taxpayers have a right fundamental objection is filed, Appeal and Lawsuit. The lawsuit provided for in article 23 of the Law on General Provisions and Tax Procedures. For guidelines set out in Article 37 of Government Regulation No. 74 of 2011. The things that can be submitted as stipulated in Article 23, Claims Act on General Rules of Taxation which gives broadly to taxpayers on matters that may be filed lawsuit. While the PP. 74 in 2011 as the directive implementation in Article 37 mentions the lawsuit can not be filed or the restriction of the things that can be filed lawsuit. Thus the Law itself provides a broadly defined as to what is proposed as a lawsuit, but in limited government regulation of things that can not be filed as a lawsuit. "

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai proses penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Indonesia melalui Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), keterkaitannya dengan proses Keberatan dan Banding serta pasal 16 dan 36 Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UU KUP) dan pengaruh dari diterbitkannya PER-48/PJ/2010 dan PP No 74 tahun 2011. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui sejauh mana proses implementasi dan aplikasi MAP di Indonesia sampai dengan saat ini dan kaitannya dengan ketentuan hukum pajak domestik yang berlaku. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa saat diterbitkannya PER-48/PJ/2010, Wajib Pajak tidak dapat menempuh dua jalur hukum secara bersamaan. Namun semenjak diterbitkannya PP No 74 tahun 2011, kemungkinan untuk menempuh dua jalur hukum yang bersamaan terbuka kembali bagi Wajib Pajak. Hal ini berarti memberikan kesempatan yang lebih besar bagi Wajib Pajak untuk menyelesaikan sengketa pajaknya dan mendapatkan keputusan yang diharapkan secara adil.

---

This thesis discusses the tax dispute resolution process in Indonesia through the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), its association with the Objections and Appeals as well as Articles 16 and 36 of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) and the effect of the issuance of PER-48/PJ/2010 and PP No 74-2011. The approach of research is qualitative, while the method is descriptive. The purpose of this study is to investigate the process of implementation and application of MAP in Indonesia up to this time and its relation to the provisions of domestic tax law.

This research concludes that according to PER-48/PJ/2010, the taxpayer can not take two legal channels simultaneously. However, since the issuance of PP No. 74 of 2011, now the taxpayer can take two legal channels simultaneously, which means providing a greater opportunity for taxpayers to resolve their tax disputes."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan yang dilakukan oleh Wajib Pajak, tata cara penyelesaian tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan menurut peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan dan pengaruhnya terhadap penerimaan negara yang dilihat dari aspek keadilan dalam pemungutan pajak. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Tujuan utama penelitian ini adalah untuk menguraikan dan memberikan masukan terhadap penerapan dari penyelesaian tindak pidana pajak di luar pengadilan dan aturan hukum atas tindak pidana tersebut. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa Pasal44B Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UU KUP) memberikan peluang bagi wajib pajak untuk menyelesaikan tindak pidana yang dilakukan tanpa melalui proses pengadilan. Pasal 44B UU KUP juga memberikan peluang penerimaan negara yang lebih besar. Penyelesaian tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan berdasarkan perundang-undangan perpajakan yang dilakukan tanpa melalui proses pengadilan telah sesuai dengan tujuan utama pajak dan tidak menyalahi asas hukum yang berlaku di Indonesia.

---

ABSTRACTThis study discusses the criminal acts committed by the taxpayer, the completion of that case according to the General Provision of Taxation Law and the settlement outside the court and its effect on state revenues which are viewed from the aspect of fairness in tax collection. The approach of this study is qualitative, while the method is descriptive. The main objective was to describe and provide input to the implementation of criminal tax settlement outside the court and the rule of law for such crime. The study concluded that article 44B in General Provisions of Taxation Law provides the opportunity for taxpayers to resolve crimes carried out without going through the court process. This article also provides opportunities for greater state revenues. Completion of criminal offenses in the field of taxation based on tax legislation without going through the court process conducted in accordance with the primary purpose and does not violate the principle of tax law in Indonesia."

"The currency or foreign exchange (FX) market is the largest financial market in the world, with trading volumes surpassing $1,9 trillion a day. Although primarily dominated by a worldwide network of interbank traders, a new era of internet-base communication technologies has recently allowed individual investors to gain direct access to this popular and profitable market. Trading in the foreign exchange market is an alternative tool for investment other than investing in stock market.The tax issues on gain from foreign exchange trading tend to be disorienting since there are no tax circular that regulates the implementation of foreign exchange trading in Indonesia. Since the absence of specific income tax law on gain from forex trading, this research attempts to explain the nature of foreign exchange trading itself, then it will describe the difference between the US Income tax treatment and the Indonesian income tax treatment on gain on forex trading followed by the conclusion to propose the right alternative tax treatment to be implemented in Indonesia. This research uses qualitative approach with descriptive technique. Library study, field study and benchmarking are chosen to gather the information. The field study is executed by interviewing tax officers, brokers, and academic scholar. While as the benchmarking is being executed by comparing with tax rule in the United State of America to propose the right tax treatment to be implemented in Indonesia.Forex trading is traded in the Over the Counter Market where there are no centralized exchanges. The nature of forex trading is to speculate in buying or selling foreign currency contract in the spot market. According to the Indonesian income tax regulation article 4(1) leter l stated that gain on foreign exchange are treated as an taxable object whilst loss on foreign exchange principally could be recognized as deductible expense. Since the absence of specific regulation relating to the tax treatment on forex trading therefore the general rule may apply, the general rule stated forex trading falls under business income category and that all increase in economic capability originating from Indonesia as well as from offshore shall be accumulated and taxed according to article 17 tax rate.Differ from the Indonesia tax law, the US tax law on profit from the fluctuation in foreign exchange rates are treated differently from foreign exchange trading. The fluctuation in foreign exchange rate as as part of their normal course of business fall under IRC Section 988. Gains and losses from foreign exchange (such as buying and selling of foreign goods) are treated as interest income or expense and get taxed accordingly. Since forex traders are also exposed to daily exchange rate fluctuations, their trading activity falls under the provisions of Section 988. These daily fluctuations can be considered part of a currency trader's assets in the normal course of his business; the IRS gives the trader the option of rejecting (opting out) of Section 988 and electing that the gains be taxed under the favorable 60/40 split of IRC Section 1256. Under IRC Section 1256, forex traders can have a significant advantage over stock traders. Forex traders are allowed to split their capital gains using a 60% / 40% split. This means that 60% of the capital gains are taxed at the lower, long-term capital gains rate (currently 15%) and the remaining 40% at the ordinary or short-term capital gains rate, which depends on the tax bracket the trader falls under (as high as 35%). This results in an average rate of 23%, which is 12% less than the regular (short-term) rate.From the comparative study between the US tax laws on foreign exchange trading, this research propose an alternative tax policy on forex trading in Indonesia. One of the alternative is only net gain are calculated and tax. The second alternative to be implemented in the form of withholding final tax payment from every realize transaction."