Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tulisan ini menganalisis pengaturan imbalan bunga perpajakan setelah diundangkannya Undang – Undang 7 Tahun 2021 tentang Harmonisasi Peraturan Perpajakan atau UU HPP, khususnya dalam amar putusan Pengadilan Pajak. Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Hak imbalan bunga perpajakan adalah bentuk representatif dari konsep value time of money. Konsep value time of money adalah perubahan nilai uang dari waktu ke waktu yang disebabkan oleh berbagai faktor. Hak imbalan bunga juga merupakan bentuk kesetaraan antara Wajib Pajak dan Fiskus karena apabila atas putusan sengketa pajak yang menyebabkan kelebihan pembayaran atas sengketa pajak wajib pajak dikenakan imbalan bunga perpajakan namun apabila putusan sengketa pajak menolak dan Wajib Pajak belum membayar dikenakan sanksi administrasi berupa denda. Namun pada praktiknya berdasarkan analisis pada putusan pengadilan pajak terdapat hak imbalan bunga yang tidak diberikan karena diberlakukannya UU HPP diberlakukan secara retroaktif sehingga hak imbalan bunga yang timbul dari UU KUP lama tidak diberikan imbalan bunga. Perspektif lainnya berdasarkan teori law and economics Wajib Pajak kehilangan kesempatan untuk mendapatkan keuntungan yang lebih karena terdapat eksternalitas pergantian peraturan perundang – undangan, sehingga dari sisi pembuat peraturan perlu mempertimbangkan teori Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency untuk menekan kenaikan angka sengketa pajak atas imbalan bunga.

---

This Thesis analyzes the regulation of tax interest rewards after the promulgation of Law 7 of 2021 concerning Harmonization of Tax Regulations or the HPP Law, especially in the ruling of the Tax Court. This Thesus was prepared using doctrinal research methods. Tax interest compensation rights are a representative form of the time value of money concept. The concept of time value of money is the change in the value of money over time caused by various factors. The right to receive interest compensation is also a form of equality between the Taxpayer and the Fiscus because if a tax dispute decision results in an overpayment of the tax dispute, the taxpayer is subject to tax interest compensation, but if the tax dispute decision is rejected and the Taxpayer has not paid, he is subject to administrative sanctions in the form of a fine. However, in practice, based on the analysis of the tax court's decision, interest compensation rights are not granted because the enactment of the HPP Law is applied retroactively so that interest compensation rights arising from the old KUP Law are not granted interest compensation. Another perspective is based on law and economics theory. Taxpayers lose the opportunity to gain more profits because there are externalities of changes in laws and regulations, so that from the regulatory side it is necessary to consider the Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency theory to reduce the increase in the number of tax disputes over interest rewards."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang asas keadilan dan kepastian hukum pada Pasal 29 Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) No. 74 Tahun 2011 dilihat dari Pasal 13A Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UUKUP). Tetapi Pasal 29 PP melarang untuk melakukan permohonan pengajuan keberatan. Permasalahan yang timbul yaitu pelarangan permohonan upaya hukum keberatan tersebut ternyata bertentangan dengan UUKUP dan ternyata PP tersebut juga terindikasi tidak memenuhi ketentuan pada UU Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 UU Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan (UUPPP). Oleh Karena latar belakang tersebut, maka pokok permasalahan tesis ini adalah apakah Pasal tersebut telah sesuai dengan asas keadilan dan kepastian hukum dalam perpajakan dan bagaimana dengan upaya hukumnya terhadap Wajib Pajak itu sendiri. Permasalahan tersebut dibahas dengan menggunakan tipologi penelitian deskriptif-perspektif, dengan menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan dan ditambah dengan informasi dari narasumber yang terkait, sehingga menghasilkan kesimpulan yaitu ternyata Pasal 29 PP No.74 Tahun 2011 tesebut tidak mencerminkan asas keadilan dan asas kepastian hukum bagi Wajib Pajak (WP), dan upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan adalah dengan 2 cara yaitu cara pertama dengan mengedepankan system case by case yang kedua yaitu dengan langsung mengajukan judicial review.

---

This thesis discusses about the principles of justice and the rule of law in Article 29 of Government Regulation No. 74 In 2011 seen from Article 13A of Law the General Provisions and Tax Procedures. But Article 29 of the Regulation prohibits the submission of objections to the petition. The problems that arise are banning the application for legal remedy of appeal was contrary to land it also indicated that Government Regulation does not meet the provisions of Act Regulation No. 12 In 2011 Act Establishment of Legislation. By because on this background, the subject matter of this thesis is whether the article has been in accordance with the principles of justice and the rule of law in taxation and how the legal efforts against taxpayers themselves. The problem is addressed by using descriptive research typology perspective, using research literature and coupled with information from relevant sources, resulting in a conclusion that turns Article 29 of Government Regulation No. 74 In 2011 proficiency level does not reflect the principles of justice and the principle of legal certainty for Taxpayers, and remedies that can be done in 2 ways is the first way to promote system case by case the second is to directly apply for judicial review."

"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."

"In order to improving awareness and compliance of taxpayers about their rights and obligations, the understanding about justice from a rule of law and regulation looked into to play an important part in improving awareness and taxpayer compliance. Comprehended level of justice of a rule is hence expected by a taxpayer earn more own awareness and compliance about their obligation of taxation. The target of this research is to analyze the level of justice from an imposition of Tax, which is Income Recognition of bank interest payable write-off, evaluated from principle of taxation justice. In this research, a descriptive analysis method was used by through study of bibliography comparing opinion among experts according to their definition, with rule of law and regulation about Recognition of Income for Bank Interest Payable Write-Off. The evaluation use Model System which assessing a policy by comparing input, Process, and Output of law and regulation policy.

From the analyze result, pulled conclusion that rule of legislation of Income Tax about Recognition of Income for Bank Interest Payable Write-Off Do Not reflect principle of justice either through Horizontal and also Vertical, because Income Recognition [of] according to rule of legislation do not in line with taxpayer ability, if compared to Income Recognition from business transaction besides Interest Payable Write-Off.

Revising rule Article 4 sentence (1) Law of Number 7 Year 1983 about Income Tax as have been altered last with Law of Number 17 Year 2000 related with Recognition of Income for Bank Interest Payable Write-Off would be able to bring constructive benefit, in the effort to improve level of its justice."