Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKForeign Investment is believed can accelerate economic growth especially Foreign DirectInvestment. FDI has benefit to host country among others in: - Improvement current balance due to capital inflow in foreign currency for initialactivities and export proceeds (if any). - Reduction of unemployment rate - Increasing economic activities due to more people has more income. - Bringing an international market access to local business. - Increasing demand for domestic sources when raw material for production is suppliedfrom local market. On the other hand it will cost host country in inter-alia: - Weakening current balance in the long run if profit repatriated is generated fromdomestic market. - Diminishing local business that similar to what FDI business activities.Survey of Foreign Direct Investment flow in 1998 states that Asia Pacific still a favorableplace. Growing areas such as Latin America, East Europe will become a thoughcompetitor to Asia Pacific. Most of them remain unchanged their investment value inAsia Pacific even some will expand their investment. It is believed could initiate a fastereconomic growth for Asia countries (see: UNCTAD & ICC survey 1998 & AsianDevelopment Outlook 1999 and ADO 2000). Indonesia is among Asia Pacific country, which currently needs FDI. Since 1980 thetrend shows a steadily increasing, but financial crisis started 1997 has totally change thetrend. Now everybody believed that FDI could help to restore and accelerate economicgrowth. From investor point of view, taxation in host country is part of their consideration beforearriving to invest or not decision. Tax is a direct deduction to cashflow generated andrepatriated to parent company. Return from their investment is partly depends on taxation. Suppose MNC can make thesanie level of profit from operation, a heavier tax burden in one country could alterinvestment place to another country, which offered a lesser tax burden. Tax burden in thiscase is consisting of Corporate or Enterprise Tax and Dividend Tax. Tax burden is heavily depends on tax rate applied and incentives offered related to thatrate. There are some criteria used before granting an incentive. Those criteria could bebecome an instrument to achieve fiscal policy target. 1f one country has a certain target ofunemployment rate, then labor-intensive FDI will get an incentive, because by attractingmore labor-intensive FDI then unemployment rate could be reduced. Another item in taxation considered, as the most important issue in cross-countryoperation is transfer pricing (see: Ernst & Young survey 1999). UnavailabilitY of transferpricing detail regulations and capable persons to implement those regulations could leadinvestment into a higher level uncertainty. There are opportunities to generate moreprofits from investment on one hand and threat to be treated unfairly -means additionalcharge to investment return-on the other hand. In brief, from investor point of view they need as low as possible tax rate or maximumtax incentives to minimize reduction to their return of investment, and a higher certaintyin transfer pricing regulations and practices due to their cross border operation.Indonesian taxation in said above points shows a condition that is not conducive to attractEDI. We only apply one rate for corporate and dividend tax. It makes tax burden sogeneral and applied to all kind of investment or business. There is no specific incentiveavailable to attract FD1. Indonesian tax rate is not the highest but having applied possibleincentive could be utilized, tax burden in Indonesia is the highest. It?s beóause there is noincentive to reduce tax burden. By doing this it seems that government of Indonesia willcollect as much as possible tax regardless multiplier effect of investment. Incentive givenwill reduce government revenue in the short-term, but in the long run along withincreasing economic activities, total revenue will be higher. China has estabLished a detail transfer pricing regulations and personnel. Thailand ispreparing those. Study says transfer pricing still occuffed in China. Indonesia has not yethad those and has a high tax rate. It will push investor to do transfer pricing due to a hightax rate that they try to avoid. Government will not collect an optimum tax becausetransfer pricing makes profit in host country minimum and corporate tax accordingly."

"Konsep nexus baru yang dicetuskan pada BEPS Action Plan 1 dikenal dengan kehadiran ekonomi signifikan (significant economic presence) yang mengilhami adanya kebijakan baru yang bersifat unilateral demi menjawab tantangan ekonomi digital. India memperkenalkan equalization levy sebagai kebijakan unilateral untuk memajaki transaksi pada ekonomi digital atas jasa periklanan digital yang diberikan oleh non-residen India ke residen pajak India. Selain itu, Inggris juga menerapkan hal serupa dengan memperkenalkan Digital Service Tax untuk memajaki atas transaksi pada layanan dan pembelian produk oleh pelaku industri Digital. Dilanjutkan dengan dicetuskannya rancangan Solusi 2 Pilar (Two-Pillar Solutions) dalam hal ini Pilar 1 (satu) sebagai realisasi aksi 1 di tahun 2021 yang berasal dari kesepakatan negara-negara dalam konsensus global yang dilakukan oleh para negara OECD inclusive framework dan negara G20 sebagai kebijakan multilateral hingga saat ini masih tidak ada kepastian dalam penerapannya. Mengacu pada hal tersebut, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggambarkan skema perpajakan yang digunakan oleh India dan Inggris dan menganalisis peluang Indonesia dalam menerapkan kebijakan unilateral atas ekonomi digital. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif serta teknik analisis data kualitatif. Berdasarkan hasil studi kepustakaan dan wawancara mendalam terhadap beberapa informan dijelaskan skema perpajakan atas ekonomi digital yang diterapkan di India dan Inggris. Indonesia juga berpeluang menerapkan kebijakan unilateral tersebut walaupun terdapat faktor penghambat yang berasal dari komitmen atas penerapan Pilar 1 yang tidak memiliki kepastian saat penerapannya, potensi ancaman perang dagang oleh Amerika Serikat dari penerapan kebijakan unilateral dan biaya kepatuhan pajak yang tinggi mempengaruhi ekonomi dari kenaikan harga atas barang dan/atau layanan pada ekonomi digital di negara sumber penghasilan serta tingginya biaya kepatuhan pajak dan pajak berganda yang muncul bagi para pelaku ekonomi digital asing yang berasal dari penerapan kebijakan unilateral yang dilakukan oleh India dan Inggris. Oleh karena itu, kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah skema perpajakan unilateral India dan Inggris mengikuti konsep kehadiran ekonomi signifikan dan Indonesia memiliki peluang dalam menerapkan kebijakan unilateral walaupun terdapat beberapa faktor penghambat sebagaimana telah dijelaskan. Pada penelitian ini penulis menyarankan mempertimbangkan informasi dari skema perpajakan yang diterapkan oleh India dan Inggris serta mempertimbangkan pembentukan kebijakan unilateral atas ekonomi digital yang terstruktur dari perundangan-undangan dan peraturan teknisnya dengan jelas dan belajar dari permasalahan yang ditemukan di Inggris dan India.

---

The new nexus concept introduced in BEPS Action Plan 1 is known as significant economic presence, which has inspired new unilateral policies to address the challenges of the digital economy. India introduced the equalization levy as a unilateral policy to tax transactions in the digital economy for digital advertising services provided by non-Indian residents to Indian tax residents. Similarly, the United Kingdom implemented a Digital Service Tax to tax transactions involving services and product purchases by digital industry players. This was followed by the introduction of the Two-Pillar Solutions draft, specifically Pillar 1, as the realization of Action 1 in 2021, based on agreements within the global consensus reached by OECD inclusive framework countries and G20 countries. However, there remains uncertainty in its implementation as a multilateral policy. Given this context, this study aims to describe the taxation schemes used by India and the United Kingdom and to analyze the potential for Indonesia to implement unilateral policies on the digital economy. This research employs a qualitative approach and qualitative data analysis techniques. Based on literature studies and in-depth interviews with several informants, the study explains the taxation schemes on the digital economy implemented in India and the United Kingdom. Indonesia also has the potential to implement such unilateral policies, although there are hindering factors stemming from the commitment to implementing Pillar 1, which lacks certainty in its application, potential trade war threats from the United States due to the implementation of unilateral policies, and high tax compliance costs affecting the economy through increased prices of goods and/or services in the digital economy in the source country, as well as high tax compliance costs and double taxation issues for foreign digital economy players due to the unilateral policies applied by India and the United Kingdom. Therefore, the conclusion of this study is that the unilateral taxation schemes of India and the United Kingdom follow the concept of significant economic presence, and Indonesia has the potential to implement unilateral policies despite several hindering factors as previously mentioned. In this study, the author suggests considering the information from the taxation schemes implemented by India and the United Kingdom, and considering the formation of a structured unilateral policy on the digital economy through clear legislation and technical regulations, while learning from the issues found in the United Kingdom and India."