Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKPerjanjian kerjasama antara Roy Bestly dan Pirmauli Simanjuntak atas JasaPembayaran Pajak Penghasilan (PPh) dan Pajak Pertambahan Nilai (PPn) untukpembayaran Surat Setoran Pajak (SSP) ke Bank BNI, direalisasikan denganpenyerahan Surat Setoran pajak (SSP) dan cek PT. Telkomsel, yang ternyatapenyetoran Surat Setoran pajak (SSP) ke Bank BNI tersebut tidak dilakukan. Haltersebut memunculkan adanya indikasi penggelapan uang Negara berupa SuratSetoran Pajak (SSP) PT Telkomsel, sehingga Jaksa Penuntut Umum mendakwaArio. P, Posma Situmorang dan Bemhard. P dengan Kitab Undang-undangHukum Pidana, karena Ario. P, Posma Situmorang, dan Bemhard. P telah menarikkeuntungan dari hasil sesuatu benda yang diketahuinya atau sepatutnya harusdiduga hal tersebut di peroleh dari kejahatan yang menyebabkan kerugian kepadaNegara, maka secara tidak langsung hal tersebut merupakan suatu perbuatanpidana yang merupakan penggelapan terhadap suatu pajak, maka dari JaksaPenuntut umum mendakwa dengan Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana. Selainhal tersebut, Putusan Pengadilan Nomor 615/PID.B/1999/PN.JKT.PST telahsesuai dengan kaidah hukum perpajakan, dikarenakan Ario. P, Posma Situmorang,Bemhard. P, Roy Bestly dan Tri Suwito. A, melakukan perjanjian kerjasama yangberindikasi kepada penggelapan uang Negara, yaitu berupa pajak, selain itumereka juga melakukan unsur kesalahan berupa kealpaan atau kesengajaan (pasal38, pasal 39, dan pasal 39A), maka dari itu Putusan Pengadilan Nomor615/PID.B/1999/PN.JKT.PST sesuai dengan kaidah hukum perpajakan.

---

ABSTRACTAgreement of cooperation between Roy Bestly and Simanjuntak, Pirmauli topPayment Services Tax (Income Tax) and Value Added Tax (PPn) Letters todeposit tax payments (SSP) to the Bank BNI, realized with the delegation letterdeposi tax (SSP) and PT Telkomsel checks, which appeared for the Lettersdeposit tax (SSP to the Baric BNI is not done. This is an indication raise moneyembezzlement State ax form letter deposit (SSP) PT Telkomsel, so that theGeneral Prosecutor alleges Ano. P, Posma Situmorang and Bernhard. P with theBook of La Criminal Law, as Ano P, Posma Situmorang, and Bernhard. P hasthe advantage of knowing something or things that should be suspected in the caseobtained from crime, which caused losses to the State, and indirectly it is acriminal act which ,s against a tax fraud, the Prosecutor General's claims with6.7/PID BmT9/PNTKTP^W- “ *• ,he C°Urt Dedsio" number . . . D D o- S ln accor<*ance with the principle taxation law,as the Ario. P, Posma Situmorang, Bernhard. P, Roy Bestly and Tri Suwito. Acooperation agreement t0 berindikasi money (0 ^ of ^namely the formif^ taxes, m addition they also make mistakes of omission ordeliberateness forn, (Axlicle 38 Article 39, and section 39A), the Decision of theCourt of Tax 615/PID.B / 1999/PN.JKT.PST accordance with the rule of lawtaxation."

"Pengajuan Banding adalah salah satu hak yang diberikan oleh Undang-Undang Perpajakan kepada Wajib Pajak untuk menyelesaikan sengketa pajak yang dialaminya dengan Fiskus di hadapan badan peradilan pajak. Langkah ini merupakan upaya lanjutan yang dapat ditempuh Wajib Pajak apabila upaya penyelesaian sengketa pajaknya dengan Fiskus di tahap keberatan tidak dapat terselesaikan sesuai keinginan Wajib Pajak. Namun untuk dapat mengajukan Banding ke Pengadilan Pajak, ada beberapa ketentuan dan persyaratan formal yang telah ditetapkan oleh Undang-Undang yang harus dipenuhi Wajib Pajak. Diantaranya seperti yang diatur pada ketentuanPasal 36 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Pengadilan Pajak bahwa dalam hal Banding diajukanterhadap besarnya jumlah pajakyang terutang, banding hanya dapat dilakukan apabila jumlah yang terutang dimaksudtelah dibayar sebesar 50 % (lima puluh persen). Sejak 1 Januari 2008, dengan diberlakukan Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Perubahan Ketiga Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1983 Tentang ketentuan Umum Dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (KUP) terjadi perubahan terhadap penerapan ketentuan tersebut diatas, penerapan ketentuan Pasal 36 ayat (4) dikaitkan dengan Undang- Undang KUP baru menjadi kurang efektif. Masih dalam Undang-Undang yang sama juga diatur ketentuanPasal 45 yang mengatur tentang masa peralihan, yang mengatur bahwa terhadap pajak-pajak yang terutang pada suatu saat, untuk Masa Pajak,Bagian Tahun Pajak, atau tahun Pajak yang berakhir sebelum saat berlakunya Undang-Undang ini, tetap berlaku ketentuan peraturan perundangundangan perpajakan yang lama sampai dengan tanggal 31 Desember 1988. Dari uraian tersebut diatas menimbulkan pengertian yang multitafsir terhadap penyelesaian penetapan pajak-pajak terutang, dan berpotensi menyebabkan terjadinya kesalahan penerapan peraturan perpajakan oleh Fiskus, yang pada akhirnya akan merugikan Wajib Pajak.

---

The filing of Appeal is one of the rights provided by the Taxation Law to a Taxpayer to settle Taxation disputes between taxpayer and the tax authorities in a taxation court body. This step constitutes the firther effort that can be made by a Taxpayer in case the settlement of tax dispute with the tax authorities in the objection stage cannot be reached in accordance with the Taxpayer?swish. However in order to file an Appeal to the Taxation Court, there are several formal provisions and requirements that have been fixed by the Laws ang that have to be observed by the Taxpayer. These provisions are among others the provisions of article 36 paragraph (4) of theTax Proceeding Law which stipulates that in case an Appeal is filed against the amount of payable tax, the appeal can only be realized if 50 % (fifty percent) of the payable amount as mentioned has been paid. Since January 1, 2008, with the enactment of Law Number 28 of 2007 concerning the third Amendment on Law Number 6 of 1983 Concerning the General Provisions and Procedures of taxation (KUP), a change has been made on the application of the provision as mentined above, so that the application of the provision of article 30 paragraph (4) as related to the new KUP Law becomes ineffective. Still in connectionwith the same Law, a provision of Article 45 has also been promulgated, which regulates the period of transition, namely that the taxes that are payable at a certain moment, for the Tax Periode, part of tax year, or Tax Year that ends before this Law starts to be effective, will remain to be subyect to the provisions of the former taxation laws until December 31, 1988. The above description might result in an ambivalent understanding concerning the establishment of the amount of payable taxes, and will have the potential of creating inaccuracies in the implementation of taxation regulations by the tax authorities, which would eventually harm the Taxpayers."

"Atas utang pajak yang belum dilunasi ditagih dengan Surat Paksa yang mempunyai kedudukan hukum yang sama dengan putusan pengadilan, walaupun Wajib Pajak sedang mengajukan keberatan maupun Banding. Namun dalam Undang-undang yang baru, pasat mengenai keberatan dan banding telah dirubah yang intinya Wajib Pajak tidak akan ditagth dengan Surat Paksa apabila telah melunasi utang pajak paling sedikit sejumlah yang telah disetujui saja. Pasal Ketentuan Peralihan juga memungkinkan atas satu Wajib Pajak dikenakan dua ketentuan yaitu UU yang lama dan UU yang baru.

---

For the tax obligation have not . et paid addicted by the Force Letter that it same to the decision of court although Taxpayer is making objection or appeal. In the new rule, chapter of objection and appeal had changed and the poin is that the Taxpayer will not addicted if the Taxpayer had paid tax obligation at least as amount that he was agree to paid only. The chapter of transition enable for one Taxpayer probably two rules, they are new rule and old 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)"

"Tugas Karya Akhir ini membahas tentang salah satu kebijakan di bidang perpajakan yang dikeluarkan oleh pemerintah melalui Pasal 37A Undang-Undang No.28 tahun 2007, yang lebih dikenal dengan nama Sunset Policy. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan jenis penelitian deskriptif.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan kebijakan tersebut dilatar belakangi oleh keinginan pemerintah untuk mengajak Wajib Pajak ke arah keterbukaan agar para Wajib Pajak bisa memenuhi kewajiban perpajakannya secara sukarela, yang akhirnya memberikan dampak positif terhadap penerimaan negara. Kendatipun kebijakan Sunset Policy ini tidak sama dengan pengampunan pajak pada umumnya, namun diharapkan hasil dari pelaksanaan kebijakan ini dapat mendorong adanya transparansi di bidang perpajakan.

---

The focus of the study is to explain about one of the fiscal policy which is issued by the government through the Tax Law No.28 year of 2007 article 37A, called Sunset Policy. This is a qualitative research with descriptive design.The result of the research shows that the implementation of this policy forced by the willingness of the government to encourage the taxpayers towards voluntarily tax compliance. This somehow, will give a positive impact to the national income. Although the policy is different from tax amnesty, the government expected that the result from its implementation will empower the transparencies in taxation."

"Upaya hukum dalam Sengketa Pajak dengan Peninjauan Kembali adalah merupakan hak yang diberikan oleh peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang perpajakan apabila kemudian salah satu pihak tidak puas terhadap putusan Pengadilan Pajak terhadap suatu Sengketa Pajak. Terhadap putusan Pengadilan Pajak yang memenangkan Banding Wajib Pajak dan membebankan kewajiban Imbalan Bunga sebesar 2% (dua persen) kepada Fiskus diatur dalam Pasal 27A ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan. Fiskus dapat mengajukan upaya hukum Peninjauan Kembali, sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 27 Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007. Namun dalam Kententuan Pasal 43 ayat (6) huruf b dan huruf c Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 74 Tahun 2011 tentang Tata Cara Pelaksanaan Hak dan Pemenuhan Kewajiban Perpajakan mengamanatkan bahwa dalam hal Wajib Pajak mengajukan permohonan Banding, imbalan bunga diberikan apabila terhadap Putusan Banding tidak diajukan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali ke Mahkamah Agung, dan dalam hal Putusan Banding diajukan permohonan Peninjauan Kembali, imbalan bunga diberikan apabila Putusan Peninjauan Kembali telah diterima oleh Direktur Jenderal Pajak dari Mahkamah Agung. Maka apabila Pemerintah berlindung pada ketentuan Pasal 43 ayat (6) huruf b dan huruf c Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 74 Tahun 2011 akan mempunyai akibat hukum yakni tertundanya pembayaran imbalan bunga yang merupakan amanat putusan Pengadilan Pajak, penundaan tersebut adalah bertentangan dengan ilmu hukum terkait dengan putusan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap sebagaimana diamanatkan Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak Pasal 33 ayat (1) Pasal 86, Pasal 77 ayat (1) dan Pasal 89 ayat (2) bahwa Putusan Pengadilan Pajak langsung dapat dilaksanakan dengan tidak memerlukan lagi keputusan pejabat yang berwenang dan Putusan Pengadilan Pajak merupakan putusan akhir dan mempunyai kekuatan hukum yang tetap serta Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali tidak menangguhkan atau menghentikan pelaksanaan Putusan Pengadilan Pajak. Dari uraian d atas, bahwa imbalan bunga yang dibebankan kepada Fiskus terhadap amanat putusan Pengadilan Pajak yang memenangkan Banding Wajib Pajak yang merupakan putusan tingkat pertama dan terakhir dapat menimbulkan multi tafsir dalam hal penyelesaian kewajiban perpajakan dan dapat pula menimbulkan ketidakpastian penerapan hukum dalam bidang perpajakan serta dapat merugikan Wajib Pajak.

---

Remedies in Tax Dispute with judicial review is a right granted by legislation in the field of taxation if the later one is not satisfied with the decision of the Tax Court for a Tax Dispute. The decision of the Appeal Tax Court that taxpayer wins and imposes a duty of 2% interest expense (two percent) to the tax authorities provided for in Article 27A paragraph (1) of Law Number 28 Year 2007 regarding General Provisions and Tax Procedures. Tax authorities may file judicial review remedies, as provided for in Article 27 of Law No. 28 of 2007. But in these Terms of Article 43 paragraph (6) letter b and c of Government Regulation Number 74 Year 2011 Concerning the Implementation of the Rights and Obligations Tax Compliance, which mandates that the Taxpayer Appeals to apply, if the interest expense given to the Appeal Decision has not been filed Revision Petition to the Supreme Court, and Appeal Decision in the case of judicial review petition filed, if the exchange rate ruling granted judicial review upon receipt by the Director General of Taxes of the Supreme Court. when the Government took refuge to the provisions of Article 43 paragraph (6) letter b and c of Government Regulation Number 74 Year 2011 has caused the delay in payment of interest expense in return is a mandate Tax Court's decision, the delay is contrary to the law relating to the decision of legally binding as stated in law No. 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court, Article 33 paragraph (1), Article 86, Article 77 paragraph (1) and Article 89 paragraph (2) that the Tax Court decision can be implemented immediately with no need for the competent authority's decision and the Tax Court Decision final decision and have the force of the permanent and judicial review application does not suspend or stop the implementation of the Tax Court Decision. From the description above, that the interest expense charged to the tax authorities against the decision of the Tax Court's mandate that won the Taxpayer Appeals is the first and final decision can lead to multiple interpretations in terms of settlement of tax liabilities and may also cause uncertainty in the application of taxation law and can detrimental to the taxpayer."

"Latar belakang dari skripsi ini yaitu pemerintah bermaksud mengoptimalkan penerimaan perpajakan negara melalui kebijakan sunset policy. Yang dimaksud dengan sunset policy adalah kebijakan pemberian fasilitas perpajakan, dalam bentuk penghapusan sanksi administrasi perpajakan berupa bunga sebagai implementasi Pasal 37A Undang-undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007. Pokok permasalahan dari skripsi ini yaitu pelaksanaan dari sunset policy dan bagaimanakah efektivitas pelaksanaannya sampai dengan 31 Desember 2008. Pelaksanaan ketentuan sunset policy telah meningkatkan ketaatan masyarakat sekaligus penerimaan negara dari sektor perpajakan. Oleh karena itu sunset policy berdasarkan Pasal 37A ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 termasuk dalam intensifikasi perpajakan karena meningkatkan penerimaan pajak dari wajib pajak lama dan wajib pajak baru lalu sunset policy berdasarkan Pasal 37A ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 termasuk ke dalam ekstensifikasi perpajakan karena menambah wajib pajak baru.

---

The background from this thesis is government meant to maximised the country's income from taxation through the sunset policy. That was meant with sunset policy was the policy of giving of taxation facilities, in the form of the abolition of administrative sanctions of taxation took the form of the interest that was arranged in the Article 37A number regulations 28 in 2007. The main subjects of this thesis are the implementation from sunset policy and how its effectiveness to implementation until December 31st 2008. Implementation of the provisions sunset policy increased the community's obedience at the same time state revenue from the sector of taxation. Because of that sunset policy was based on the Article 37A paragraph (1) number regulations 28 in 2007 including in the intensification of taxation because of increasing acceptance of the tax from the long tax obligator and new tax obligator and sunset policy based on the Article 37A paragraph (2) number regulations 28 in 2007 including inside extensification of taxation because of increasing the new tax obligator."

"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. "