Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Utang pajak memiliki keistimewaan yang membedakannya dengan utang niaga. Dimana utang pajak memiliki Hak Istimewa yang pemenuhannya didahulukan di atas pemenuhan pembayaran utang lainnya. Pokok permasalahan yang akan dibahas dalam tulisan ini adalah mengenai kedudukan utang pajak dalam perkara kepailitan dan bagaimana seharusnya penyelesaian utang pajak atas perusahaan yang pailit. Pokok permasalahan tersebut akan dianalisa dengan menggunakan peraturan di bidang perpajakan dan peraturan di bidang kepailitan. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui kedudukan utang pajak yang memiliki hak mendahulu pada pelunasan utang pajak atas perusahaan yang pailit. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian yang mengacu kepada peraturan perundang-undangan dan penelitian kepustakaan dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Penelitian ini juga menjelaskan pengaturan utang pajak atas kepailitan yang diterapkan di Jepang dan Singapura. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian terhadap kitab undang-undang hukum perdata, undang-undang perpajakan, dan undang-undang kepailitan, utang pajak harus didahulukan karena memiliki hak mendahulu dan penyelesaiannya tunduk dengan yang diatur dalam undang-undang perpajakan.

---

Tax debt has specialties that make it different with commercial debt. Tax debt contains privilege to be fulfilled first than other debts. The main issues that would be discussed in this writing are about the position of tax debt in insolvency case and how it supposed to be settlement by the law. The issues would be analyzed with tax regulations and bankruptcy regulations. The purpose of this research is to know about tax debt position that has privilege in winding up process. Research method that is being used is juridical normative method, which means the research is based on regulation and library research that used secondary data. This research also explain the position of tax claims in Japan and Singapore. Based on the research of civil law, tax regulations, and bankruptcy regulations, tax debt must be fulfilled first because his privilege and winding up procedures based on process in tax regulation."

"Endless Economic crisis knock over Indonesia since 1997 causing many companies cannot pay for the obligation and the creditor proposed it to be a bankrupt in Commercial Justice. This Condition for Tax General Directorate (DJP) become separate problems, because to the number of Taxpayers which is bankrupt cause DJP losing of Taxpayer and un-billed for tax debt. In bankrupt case there is interesting matter needing careful attention that is existence of different interpretation of Judge of Commercial Justice to the domiciling of tax debt. At the case of PT. ABC Judge of Commercial Justice treat tax debt is equal to commercial debt, whereas at case of PT. XYZ, Judge of Commercial Justice differentiate tax debt of commercial debt so that, it has to pay ahead then the rest of estate divided for the creditor of other commercial. Therefore problem which raised in this research is how domiciling Taxation rule in penalty system in Indonesia and whether there is correlation of synergy between Taxation rule with rights rule and bankrupt bill for debt including tax payable and what effort able to be conducted to harmonize taxation rule with Bankrupt rule. Research method used is descriptive with qualitative approach. From research result obtained result of tax rule that has to domicile as lex specialis in Indonesia law for problem related to tax, while civil law and other public law as lex generalis. But in Bankrupt rule, bankrupt problem is lex specialis, so that has to domicile which is equal strength. So that whether DJP and Commercial Justice stay with rule of each rule which cause UUK (bankrupt rule) with Taxation rule cannot synergize in solution of tax debt for company's bankrupt. Position relating to lex specialis, hence both, that is taxation rule and bankrupt rule is less synergy, this matter seen in case of PT. ABC and PT. XYZ. Judge of Commercial Justice handling the case in different interpretation. In case of PT. ABC Judge of Commercial justice overrule tax and only focusing at Bankrupt rule in order to be billed for tax payable DJP must conduct an effort to many levels of Cassation Appellate Court.While case of PT. XYZ Judge of Commercial Justice overrules the problem of tax from bankrupt problem because tax arranged in Taxation rule, it means that Judge of Commercial Justice pay attention at Taxation rule as lex specialis. The above mentioned can be avoided by adding coherent rule in bankrupt rule that tax has to be differentiated with civil debt and is not in bankrupt scope.In order to have legal force which is jurisprudence remain from Appellate Court decision in case of cassation taxation area was presumably packed into recorrection of other trading law. For example bankrupt problem, Bankrupt rule consist of 308 section only mentioning word " taxation" that is section 113 Sentence (1) letter b, expressing that must be done verification tax debt, without expressing that tax is not civil debt. This matter not explained in explanation of section 113 UUK (bankrupt rule) so that just arise different interpretations or understanding. By equalizing DJP with other creditor make DJP must be at one's feet of bankrupt mechanism, in fact, clearly tax debt is not civil debt so that there must be coherent in UUK that DJP is not creditor and tax debt is not civil debt but obligation of political. In order to conduct activity of collection at once and at the same time Taxpayer showing bankrupt marking, hence DJP need information from Commercial Justice if there is Taxpayer which is processing by application of its bankrupt. It can be made by a kind of MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) between DJP with Commercial Justice to obtain information quickly if there is bankrupt case. Then resources of DJP out of condition to finish tax collection at Taxpayer which is bankrupt, hence activity of collection tax can be more intensive again."

"Endless economic crisis knocked over Indonesia since 1997 and causing many companies unable to pay for the obligation and creditor proposed it to be a bankrupt in Commercial Justice. This condition for Tax General Directorate (DJP) become separate problems, because to the number of Taxpayers which is bankrupt cause DJP losing of Taxpayer and un-billed for tax debt. In bankrupt case there is interesting matter needing careful attention, such as at PT XYZ it explained to why the defined tax debt is based on SKP and aggregated by a warrant are unpaid thoroughly instead state has preferential right to tax debt over tax defendant properties. DJP should conduct a law effort to appeal level through Supreme Court in order to billing tax debt. Therefore problem raised in this research is to describe how the implementation of preferential right by a country in paying of ta debt at bankrupt case of PT.XYZ and numerous barriers which become an insulator implementation of preferential right from country in paying of tax debt at bankrupt case of PT XYZ.Research method used is a descriptive with a qualitative approach. In solving case of PT XYZ case it is necessarily to apply Bankruptcy provisions so that research results are obtained and take no base account of tax provisions as an extra ordinary rules. Therefore PT XYZ?s preferential right has not run well in billing tax debt. This will caused of many obstacles turn to insulator as to know of DJP postponement in learning any bankruptcy of tax payer information also caused a long effort to bill, and the adjustment of preferential right in tax provisions is limited by time. The existency of curator?s role in paying tax debt of tax payer bankruptcy that has a consideration in sharing acquisition of debt sales, and tax provisions of preferential right clashes with workforce provisions of preferential right and during in billing tax payer should follow bankruptcy process so that will cause tax debt put into equation of common debt.By anticipating the bankruptcy of tax payer it is necessary for DJP to look in to information and cooperation through Memorandum Of Understanding (MoU) with Commercial Court in order to perform an instant billing. KPP shall notify curator of DJP?s position which have a preferential right against Tax Payer bankruptcy. In order to have a standing law force, a Supreme Court Jurisprudencial during in appealing case recommend to tax sector to be inserted into revision of Bankruptcy Provisions. Implementation of Chapter 41 verse (3) legislation number 4 year 2008 of Bankruptcy, has mentioned that the replacement of settlement of tax debt collection are beyond bankruptcy process paths. It is expected that government would provide a strict management in constructing provisions in which related to Tax Preferential Right, or of imbalance between Tax Provisions with other Legislations that should be reviewed."

"ABSTRAKPenerimaan negara dari sektor perpajakan dipergunakan untuk kepentinganpenyelenggaraan negara serta kesejahteraan rakyat. Usaha Direktorat JenderalPajak dalam mendapatkan pelunasan utang pajak seringkah terjadi benturandengan pihak lain dalam hal ini yaitu kreditur lainnya (wajib pajak juga memilikiutang terhadap pihak lain), sehingga terjadi perebutan atas harta kekayaan wajibpajak/penanggung pajak untuk pelunasan utang negara dan kreditur lainnya. Hakmendahulu negara menjadi solusi bagi Direktorat Jenderal Pajak dalam upayanyauntuk mendapatkan pelunasan utang dari wajib pajak/penanggung pajak.Pengaturan mengenai hak mendahulu negara terdapat pada beberapa peraturanperundang-undangan, yaitu KUHPerdata, dan secara khusus diatur dalamUndang-undang (UU) Nomor 16 Tahun 2009 tentang Penetapan PeraturanPemerintah Pengganti Undang-undang No.5 Tahun 2008 tentang Perubahankeempat atas Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1983 tentang Ketentuan Umumdan Tata Cara Perpajakan menjadi Undang-undang (KUP), UU Nomor 19 Tahun2000 Tentang Perubahan Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 1997 TentangPenagihan Pajak dengan Surat Paksa, UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitandan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, dan Undang-Undang No. 4 Tahun1996 Tentang Hak Tanggungan atas Tanah Beserta Benda-benda Yang Berkaitandengan Tanah. Implementasi hak mendahulu negara pada peraturan perundangundangandi Indonesia pada pokoknya berupa kedudukan negara lebih tinggidaripada kreditur preferen dikecualikan dari biaya-biaya yang harus didahulukansebagaimana yang telah disebutkan dalam undang-undang. Pelaksanaanpemungutan utang pajak berkaitan hak mendahulu negara dalam hal kepailitanternyata terdapat hambatan, terutama di Pengadilan Niaga (dalam prosesKepailitan). Hambatan-hambatan pemungutan pajak berkaitan dengan hakmendahulu negara berupa pengaturan peraturan perundang-undangan yangmenimbulkan multi tafsir (substansi hukum) dan kurangnya koordinasi diantaraaparatur penegak hukum dengan Direktorat Jenderal Pajak."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis implikasi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap hak-hak pemerintah dalam rangka pemungutan pajak, upaya penegakan hukum perpajakan dan perlindungan hukum yang adil serta kepastian bagi semua pihak yang berinteraksi dengan badan hukum. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa hak negara untuk memungut pajak adalah otoritas yang sah bukan hanya karena halal menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dan pendekatan hukum sebagai penelitian yuridis normatif yang mengarahkan penelitian tentang materi sekunder seperti buku, undang-undang positif, dan norma tertulis. Justifikasi pengenaan pajak secara konstitusional berlabuh pada Pasal 23A UUD 1945. Analisis ini juga menunjukkan bahwa pengaturan yang diuraikan dalam Pasal 2 ayat 6 dan Pasal 32 ayat 2 UU KUP, yang tunduk pada tinjauan materiil, sangat penting dan bermanfaat untuk menjaga kepastian hukum dan keadilan dalam pembayaran pajak.

---

This study aims to analyze the implications of the Constitutional Court's decision on government rights in the context of tax collection, tax law enforcement efforts and fair legal protection and certainty for all parties interacting with legal entities. This study indicates that the state's right to collect taxes is a valid authority not only because it is lawful utilizing normative legal research and a legal approach as normative juridical research that directs research on secondary material such as books, positive legislation, and written norms. Justification of tax constitutionally anchored on Article 23A of the 1945. This analysis also demonstrates that the arrangements outlined in Article 2 paragraph 6 and Article 32 paragraph 2 of the KUP Law, which are subject to material review, are extremely important and helpful for preserving legal certainty and justice in tax payments."