Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas tentangAnalisis Persyaratan Formal Pembayaran Lima Puluh Persen Pajak Terutang Dalam Upaya Hukum Banding di Pengadilan Pajak Ditinjau Dari Prinsip Good Governance.Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah:telah terjadi suatu perubahan ketentuan terkait persyaratan formal pembayaran lima puluh persen pajak terutang saat mengajukan banding ke Pengadilan Pajak. Ketentuan dalam Pasal 36 ayat (4) masih berlaku aktif namun formulasi pajak terutang dalam ketentuan tersebut menjadi berubah, yakni dari jumlah yang disetujui Wajib Pajak pada saat pembahasan hasil akhir pemeriksaan. Manakala atas jumlah yang disetujui tersebut telah dibayarkan, maka Wajib Pajak tidak lagi dianggap memiliki hutang pajak saat mengajukan banding. Perubahan ini dirasa membantu untuk mewujudkan keadilan dan kepastian hukum sehingga mencerminkan terpenuhinya prinsip Good Governance yang membantu Pengadilan Pajak dalam upaya mewujudkan Pengadilan Pajak yang berasas cepat, murah, dan sederhana.

---

This thesis discusses about the Formal Requirements Analysis of Fifty Percent Tax Payment Within The Submission of An Appeal in the Tax Court Seen From Good Governance Principle. The study used descriptive qualitative research design. The results of this study is: there has been a change in the formal requirements of the relevant provisions of fifty percent of the tax payment owed when submitting an appeal to the Tax Court. The provisions in Article 36 paragraph (4) is still valid, but the formulation of tax payable in such provisions has changed to be the approved amount of the taxpayer at the end of the closing conference. When the agreed amount was paid, the taxpayer is no longer considered to have a tax liability when submitting the appeal. This change was felt to help the realization the tax system that adheres to equity and legal certainty principle and also increasingly realized the fulfillment of good governance principle and reflect and helps the Tax Court to realize it?sfundamental of a fast, inexpensive, and simple court."

"The findings of tax audit stipulated in the tax decree letter sometimes create disputes between tax payers and fiscus. The resolution of the tax dispute is done through Objection Institution at the first level, then Tax Court, and finally Supreme Court. Based on the data there were many appeal pledges granted at the appeal level. Long process along with the charges imposed on the tax payers for some parts of their outstanding taxes as a formal requirement of pledging the appeal has caused high cost from the part of tax payers. The Objection Institution is expected by the tax payers to be able to fulfil their aspirations in seeking for justice.This thesis was intended to provide a picture about what went on in the tax disputes that went into the appeal level of Tax Court; how the attitude of assembly towards the approch to calculating the Fiscus, what were the weaknesses of the audit results, and what solutions that could be done to overcome the problems.To answer those questions the data in a farm of Tax Court verdicts were collected and analysed. To limit the problems the verdicts (data) that were analysed were only verdicts related with the objections in the Regional Office of Directorate General of Tax Jakarta II. and confined to Income Tax type. Based on the research it was found that there a few things that made the difference between fiscus and tax payers. amongst other split opinions in verifying the supporting evidence, the officials handicaps in understanding and interpreting the patterns of the fax payers' businesses, the ignorance of the tax payers in understanding the tax rules and regulations. and the inadequate rules of tax implementation. From the four factors, in fact, the real problems were the followings:- Split opinions in verifying supporting evidence;- The officials handicaps in understanding and interpreting the patterns of the tax payers' businesses and accountancy;- The inadequate rules of tax implementationThe reviewed or cancelled tax assesments in the appeal process showed that there were weaknesses in the auditing products. Such weaknesses occurred particularly due to the insufficient application of the auditing procedures. The auditors found the indication of tax potency, however. they were not able to proove it with conclusive material evidence so that the auditors' correction could not be defended in the Tax Court.The unsatisfied tax payers towards the audit results had made the tax payers to take the objection process until the appeal and review. The length of the time span had caused two things:- The service provision to the tax payers decreased;- Opportunity for the tax payers.The correction in audit procedures was the main key because the audit results would play significant role and would determine the research process in the objection level, tax court, as well as judicial review in the Supreme Court. The confirmation of the data availabilty was of great importance, on condition that the tax payers were given sufficient time to respond to the audit resultsThe performance of the Objection Institution needed to be improved so that it could deny such negative perceptions as: stamping the audit results, lengthening the audit period, or merely to decrease the amount taxes that were reported to the Tax Court. To overcome such problems there needed to consider the discourse (concept) to shorten the objection resolution period, besides the proposal to consider jurisprudency of the Tax Court verdicts."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pelaksanaan penyelesaian sengketa banding tarif bea masuk di pengadilan pajak pada studi kasus PT. 3I di Pengadilan Pajak. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini dirinci dalam satu sub pokok permasalahan, yaitu Bagaimana pelaksanaan banding dalam penyelesaian sengketa tarif bea masuk pada PT.3I di Pengadilan Pajak. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa hendaknya Pemohon Banding mengajukan permohonan Peninjauan Kembali sebagai upaya hukum luar biasa ke Mahkamah Agung atas Putusan Pengadilan Pajak atas kelebihan pembayaran Bea Masuk dan Pajak dalam rangka Impor yang telah dibayarkan, serta kinerja dan kemampuan pengetahuan hukum dari para hakim yang harus ditingkatkan. Hal ini agar kepentingan semua pihak terpenuhi sehingga dapat tercapai rasa keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi masyarakat dan citra yang lebih baik bagi Pengadilan Pajak sebagai tempat mencari keadilan.

---

The concentration of the research is relating to the implementation of Import duty dispute appeal in tax court on case studies of PT. 3I in Tax Court. The main issue in this study is detailed in one main sub-problem, namely how to appeal in a dispute import duty tariffs on PT.3I in Tax Court. This study is qualitative research using descriptive approach method.

The results suggest that the applicant should appeal to apply for judicial review as an extraordinary remedy to the Supreme Court of Tax Court Decision on the excess payment of import duty and taxes on the import that has been paid, as well as the performance and capabilities of the legal knowledge of judges should be improved. In order for all parties interest are met so as to achieve a sense of justice and legal certainty for the community and a better image for the Tax Court as a place to seek justice."

"Dalam pelaksanaannya, proses pemungutan pajak oleh Fiskus tidak selamanya berlangsung mulus, adakalanya proses pemungutan tersebut bergejolak sehingga menimbulkan sengketa antara Fiskus dengan Wajib Pajak. Keberadaan dan kedudukan Pengadilan Pajak dalam Undang-undang adalah untuk melaksanakan kekuasaan kehakiman, melakukan pemeriksaan, dan memutus sengketa pajak bagi Wajib Pajak yang mencari keadilan. Pengadilan Pajak berfungsi sebagai peredam gejolak sekaligus sebagai pengawal proses pemungutan pajak sehingga jumlah penerimaan pajak yang masuk ke kas negara merupakan jumlah yang neto atau jumlah yang bersih dari sengketa. Berdasarkan data yang ada diketahui bahwa Wajib Pajak lebih banyak memenangkan persengketaan pajak di Pengadilan Pajak dibandingkan Fiskus.Penelitian ini mengkaji tentang penyebab permohonan banding Wajib Pajak dimenangkan di Pengadilan Pajak yang artinya Wajib Pajak memenangkan persengketaan di Pengadilan pajak dan upaya-upaya DJP untuk meminimalisir hal tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif.Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar DJP meningkatkan kualitas hasil pemeriksaan dan penelitian keberatannya dengan mengimplementasikan prinsip reward and punishment dimana DJP tidak perlu lagi menggunakan realisasi penerimaan dari hasil pemeriksaan sebagai alat ukur kinerja, DJP melakukan pertemuan rutin secara periodik dengan Pengadilan Pajak sehingga terbentuk kesepahaman yang sama tentang suatu ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan, DJP langsung menggunakan hasil evaluasi Putusan Pengadilan Pajak untuk merevisi suatu peraturan yang dianggap tidak adil dan membuat peraturan terhadap suatu proses bisnis yang belum diatur, dan DJP melakukan pembahasan dengan Pengadilan pajak untuk menciptakan sinergi mengenai penilaian pembuktian.In practice, the process of tax collection by the tax authorities do not always go smoothly, sometimes the process of collecting is volatile, giving rise to disputes between tax authorities and taxpayers. The existence and position of the Tax Court in the Law is to implement the judicial authorities, conduct, and decide tax disputes for taxpayers who seek justice. Tax court serves as a dampening volatility as well as the guardian of the tax collection process so that the amount of tax revenue coming into the state treasury is the net amount or the amount exclude the dispute. Based on existing data, more taxpayers wins tax dispute in the Tax Court than the tax authorities.

This research examine the causes of Taxpayers appeals won in Tax Court which means taxpayers won the dispute in Tax Court and DJP efforts to minimize that. This research is a qualitative research with descriptive design.

Result of the research suggest DJP improve the quality of the tax audit or verification result and objection settlement by implementing the rewards and punishment principle where DJP no longer necessity to use actual revenues from the tax audit or verification results as a performance measurement tool, DJP periodically conduct regular meetings with the Tax Court to form a same understanding of tax regulations, DJP immediately tap the evaluation result of Tax Court Decision to revise a regulation that are considered not fair and make new regulation against a business process which not yet regulated, and DJP make a discussion with Tax Court to create synergy about assessment of the evidence."

"Penyelesaian sengketa pajak tidak terlepas dari permasalahan. Keberadaan Pengadilan Pajak saat ini menjadi sorotan publik karena adanya pegawai yang korupsi, penyelesaian sengketa pajak yang lama, dan penumpukan kasus. Peran pengawasan menjadi penting agar Pengadilan Pajak bekerja sesuai dengan ketentuannya. Fokus penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengawasan yang dilakukan oleh Pengadilan Pajak dalam mekanisme penyelesaian banding.Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif positivis, di mana data dan informasi dalam penelitian ini diperoleh melalui studi lapangan dengan wawancara mendalam berbagai pihak yang terkait dan studi kepustakaan. Jenis penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitik dan teknik analisis data dalam penelitian ini adalah kualitatif.Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa pengawasan belum baik dalam mekanisme penyelesaian banding di Pengadilan Pajak ditinjau dari teori pengawasan Robbins dan Coulter.

---

Completion of tax disputes can not be separated from the problem. The existence of the tax court in Indonesia becomes the public spotlight today because of the corrupt officials, the long tax dispute completion, and the accumulating cases. Controlling is important in the tax court in order to accordance with objectives and standards. Focus of this study purposes determine the controlling carried out by the tax court in an appeal mechanism to resolve.

This research uses a positivist quantitative research approach which the data in the study is obtained through depth interview of stakeholders and literature study. Type of research in this study is descriptive-analytic and method of data analysis is qualitative.

The result of this study is not good tax court controlling in completing the appeal mechanism based on the theory of controlling Robbins and Coulter."