Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[At] in the middle of the 2003, Director General of Tax release an idea to abstract tax incentive of mutual funds which [is] its investment portfolio base on bonds Its meaning, exemption of bonds interest of mutual funds as income tax object as arranged in [Code/Law] Number 10 year 1994 will be negated. this Idea appearance will not be discharged from growth of industry of mutual funds which [is] spectacular as long as 2001-2003. Level of fund of amount exist in mutual funds " opening" Director General of Tax's eye about level of existing tax potency if/when tax incentive abstracted. Background by [the] mentioned, writer interest to perform [a] furthermore research to idea. Title which finally writer select;choose [is] " Analysis Treatment of Income Tax of mutual funds Evaluated from Principle of Neutrality and of Revenue Adequacy".

Formulation of problem becoming the this topic of research [is] how growth of industry of mutual funds along with policy of taxation [him/it], specially which [is] its investment portofolio base on bonds, related to the level of tax potency able to become acceptance of tax , how big tax sector contribution to acceptance of state in the effort government create the condition of fiscal sustainability , do repeal of income tax incentive of mutual funds which [is] its investment portfolio base on bonds have on schedule, and what implication of repeal of revenue incentive to growth of mutual funds [in] time later.

To [reply/ answer] the problems, collected data from various source of analysis with descriptive method qualitative. Result of the analysis [is] later;then made [by] premise to analyze to treatment of income tax of mutual funds evaluated from principle of neutrality and of revenue adequacy. Output the yielded [is] right time for the imposition of taxation to mutual funds, and level of proper income tax tariff to mutual funds (precisely, obligation interest of mutual funds).

Result of research which [is] indicate that income tax incentive to mutual funds [do] not in parallel and as according to order and principles of normative imposition, principal specially justice and neutrality. Particularly, fact show the tax incentive have out of the target from target of initially and there [is] indication " insincere" by whereas [party/ side]. Relate to sufficiency of acceptance of tax (revenue adequacy ), repeal of incentive will give addition acceptance of State of very big tax sector [of] its benefit to defrayal of State expense."

"Government needed more income to raise the national budget. They issued instruments to collect income from citizen through debt and foreign currency. Government released Governmental Bonds for domestic market, which sold in retail (ORI) and for international market in foreign currency. Government also presented a law execution regulation to give certainty for the consumers or the taxpayers.Governmental Regulation Number 6 which published in 2002 distinguished the tax procedure for the bonds which imposed only on transactions tradable and reportable to the stock exchange. Income derived or taken from obligation transaction should be based on a global taxation. While, for the international bonds were given the facilities by the government. We would assume that there was an inequality between the bonds for domestic market and for international market. In global taxation, we should not differentiate the income by the source.This research used a quantitative descriptive as the research method. The type and data collection techniques used (1) literature research including on various taxation regulations and another related documents and (2) field research using interviews with such related parties as tax academicians, government as issuer and regulator. They gave several opinion which created differences in equity perspective.Government figured the debt as the best instrument to raise government income. They considered that attracting foreign investor by giving them tax facility was necessary to raise the budget. They named their policy as their budgeting and regulating function. But, we should notice that domestic investor might think the inequality of the tax burden.Therefore, it was suggested to make a comprehensive and equal policy. Based on tax principle, that tax should be fair and equal. It became fair that tax imposed on the income earned from the same source (instrument) equally. If one of them was given the facility, so the other should be given the same facility."

"Jenis-jenis penghasilan tertentu yang diatur dalam Pasal 4 ayat (2) UU PPh 1984 telah berubah. Semula hanya penghasilan dari bunga deposito dan tabungan lainnya, kemudian menjadi empat macam jenis penghasilan sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 4 ayat (2) UU PPh 1994. Keberadaan PPh final, sebagai tindak lanjut atas perubahan tersebut, dalam perkembangannya telah memberikan kesederhanaan baik bagi wajib pajak maupun bagi fiskus. Namun, pengertian kesederhanaan hanya berkaitan dengan kesederhanaan dalam sistem dan prosedur pembayaran atau pemotongan/pemungutan oleh pihak ketiga (witholding). Sedangkan kesederhanaan dalam arti undang-undang tidak demikian adanya. Berdasarkan hasil wawancara dengan Direktur Pajak Penghasilan, Direktur Peraturan Perpajakan, Kepala Kantor Pelayanan Pajak Perusahaan Masuk Bursa, dan Wajib Pajak serta penelitian pada praktik yang sesungguhnya, dari segi asas keadilan (equality), PPh final ini sangat tidak adil karena keadilan mensyaratkan terhadap Wajib Pajak yang mempunyai kemampuan ekonomis yang sama dikenakan pajak yang sama dan terhadap Wajib Pajak yang berbeda kemampuan ekonomisnya dikenakan pajak yang berbeda setara dengan perbedaan tersebut. Akan tetapi, sebagai upaya untuk mengurangi rasa ketidakadilan, peraturan pemerintah telah memberikan pilihan kepada wajib pajak untuk tetap memilih menggunakan tarif umum PPh (tarif Pasal 17 UU PPh) jika wajib pajak tidak menggunakan kemudahan yang diatur dalam peraturan pemerintah. Kemudahan PPh final bagi wajib pajak adalah wajib pajak tidak perlu menggabungkan penghasilan yang telah dikenakan PPh final dengan penghasilan lainnnya, dan juga wajib pajak tidak perlu menghitung berapa keuntungan yang diperolehnya. Akan tetapi, wajib pajak tetap mempunyai kewajiban melaporkannya dalam SPT Tahunan. Sedangkan bagi fiskus, kemudahan ini wujud dalam pelaksanaan dan pengawasannya."

"Dalam rangka menggali penerimaan pajak, Pemerintah mengeluarkan peraturan perpajakan yang mengenakan Pajak Penghasilan final atas penghasilan tertentu, antara lain : bunga deposito dan tabungan lainnya, penghasilan dari transaksi saham dan sekuritas lainnya di bursa efek, penghasilan dari pengalihan harta berupa tanah dan atau bangunan serta penghasilan tertentu lainnya. Namun kebijakan pengenaan pajak atas penghasilan-penghasilan tersebut tetap harus mengacu pada prinsip keadilan dan netralitas pemungutan pajak.Tujuan penelitian adalah untuk menganalisis apakah kebijakan pengenaan Pajak sudah memenuhi prinsip keadilan dan netralitas pemungutan pajak.Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode deskriptif analisis melalui studi kepustakaan yang membandingkan antara pendapat beberapa pakar mengenai prinsip-prinsip pemungutan pajak yang baik dengan ketentuan Pajak Penghasilan final Undang-undang Pajak Penghasilan.Penilaian analisis tersebut mempergunakan Model System yang menilai suatu kebijakan dengan membandingkan input, process dan output kebijakan peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan.Dari hasil penelitian analitis diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa ketentuan Pajak Penghasilan final kurang mencerminkan prinsip keadilan, baik keadilan vertikal maupun horizontal, karena jumlah pajak yang dibayar oleh wajib tidak mencerminkan dengan kemampuan membayar wajib pajak tersebut. Ditinjau dari prinsip netralitas pajak, ketentuan tersebut tidak memenuhi prinsip netralitas karena adanya perlakuan pemajakan yang tidak sama antara satu jenis penghasilan dengan jenis penghasilan lainnya meskipun jumlah penghasilan yang diterima atau diperoleh sama.Penerapan kembali ketentuan Pasal 17 ayat (1) Undang-undang Pajak Penghasilan dan sifat pembayaran tidak final lebih mencerminkan keadilan baik vertikal maupun horizontal karena jumlah pajak yang dibayar sesuai dengan kemampuan wajib pajak (penghasilan netto) dan juga diterapkannya tarif progresif. Disamping itu, perlu ditinjau kembali kewenangan pemerintah yang luas yang mengenakan pajak tersendiri diluar Pasal 17 ayat (1) Undang-undang Pajak Penghasilan."