Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penulisan tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan dengan data sekunder sebagai sumber datanya. Yang menjadi permasalahan adalah mengapa alat-alat berat dan alat-alat besar dikategorikan sebagai objek pajak kendaraan bermotor dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah dan apakah sudah tepat pajak kendaraan bermotor terhadap alat-alat berat dan alat-alat besar dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah jika dibandingkan dengan dari Undang-Undang Nomor 38 Tahun 2004 Tentang Jalan Dan Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2009 Tentang Lalu Lintas dan Angkutan Jalan. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa alasan menjadikan alat-alat berat sebagai perluasan objek pajak kendaraan bermotor adalah untuk meningkatkan sumber penerimaan daerah dari sektor pajak. Jika ditinjau dari Undang-Undang Jalan dan Undang-Undang Lalu Lintas dan Angkutan Umum dengan Undang- Undang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah masih terdapat perbedaan definisi tentang alat berat. Timbulnya perbedaan penafsiran karena dalam Undang- Undang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah tidak ada definisi alat berat. Dalam Undang-Undang tersebut tidak ditemukan definisi apa yang dimaksud dengan alat berat melainkan hanya mencantumkan jenis-jenis alat berat.

---

This writing of this thesis is using library research methods with secondary data as the source. The problem is why heavy and large equipments are categorized as the object of vehicles taxation based on Act Number 28 of 2009 about Tax and Regional Levies and Is it correct if compared to Act Number 38 of 2004 about Road and Act Number 22 of 2009 about Traffic and Road Transport.

The result study concluded that why heavy equipments are the object of taxation vehicle is to increase regional inputs from its taxation. If it is reviewed from Act of Road and Act of Traffic and Road Transport compared to Ant of Taxation and Regional Levies it has different definition on the equipments. The occurance of different point of view is that, theret is no exact definition about heavy equipment on law of taxation and regional levies. The law is only mention the types."

"Sejak di keluarkanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XV/2017 yang memutuskan pada pokoknya menyatakan bahwa pengaturan pemungutan pajak terhadap alat-alat berat dan alat-alat besar melalui skema pemungutan pajak kendaraan bermotor dan bea balik nama kendaraan bermotor dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat. Maka dari itu, penelitian ini mengkhususkan pembahasan pada pengaturan  pajak kendaraan bermotor atas alat-alat berat dan alat-alat besar sebelum adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XV/ 2017 dan pengaturan yang ideal terhadap objek pajak alat-alat berat dan alat-alat besar. Pada penelitian ini akan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis-normatif yang mana berlandaskan pada bahan pustaka atau data sekunder atau dengan kata lain penelitian ini mengacu pada norma hukum peraturan perundang-undangan dan referensi dokumen lain yang terkait dengan pengkajian, penelitian dan proses legislasi. Hasil penelitian ini adalah objek pajak alat-alat berat dan alat-alat besar dipungut berdasarkan skema pajak kendaraan bermotor dan bea balik nama kendaraan bermotor yang mana diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah juncto Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 55 Tahun 2016 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Pemungutan Pajak Daerah. Selain itu, pengaturan yang ideal terhadap objek pajak alat-alat berat dan alat-alat besar harus menggunakan teori demokrasi hukum pajak dengan memuat hukum pajak materiil dan hukum pajak formil serta memperhatikan tujuan keadilan umum dan merata, fungsi perpajakan, dan mengikuti prosedur pembuatan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.

---

Since the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XV/2017 which decided in essence that the regulation of tax collection on heavy equipment and large equipment through a motor vehicle tax collection scheme and motor vehicle transfer fees in Law Number 28 of 2009 concerning Regional Taxes and Regional Levies is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force. Therefore, this study focuses on the discussion of the regulation of motor vehicle tax on heavy equipment and large equipment prior to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XV/2017 and the ideal regulation of the tax object of heavy equipment and large equipment. This research will use a juridical-normative research method which is based on library materials or secondary data or in other words, this research refers to the legal norms of laws and regulations and other document references related to assessment, research and the legislative process. The results of this research that heavy equipment and large equipment tax objects are collected based on the motor vehicle tax scheme and motor vehicle transfer fees which are regulated in Law Number 28 of 2009 concerning Regional Taxes and Levies in conjunction with Government Regulation Number 55 of 2009 2016 concerning General Provisions and Procedures for Collecting Regional Taxes. In addition, the ideal regulation of the tax object of heavy equipment and large equipment must use the theory of material tax law and formal tax law and pay attention to the objectives of general and equitable justice, the function of taxation, and follow the procedures for making applicable laws and regulations. "

"[ABSTRAKAnak yang dilahirkan dari perkawinan tidak sah akan menciptakan pada status anak luar kawin bagi anak bersangkutan. Konsekuensi normatif dari status anak luar kawin membawa pada tidak adanya hubungan keperdataan antara anak luar kawin dengan ayah biologisnya. Keadaan tersebut tentu menghilangkan hak-hak konstitusional anak. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusional Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010, menjadi jawaban bagi anak luar kawin untuk memperoleh kembali hak tersebut. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memfokuskan pada dua hal, yaitu perlindungan anak dan pertanggungjawaban ayah biologis melalui pembuktian. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi acuan oleh Pengadilan Negeri dalam menghadapi permasalahan anak luar kawin. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa, oleh beberapa Pengadilan Negeri yang dibahas dalam penulisan ini terlihat ketidakkonsistenan hakim dalam memberikan pertimbangan hukum berkaitan dengan status keperdataan anak luar kawin. Sehingga, perlu adanya kejelasan tentang aturan dan prosedur yang mengatur tentang penetapan ayah biologis dari anak luar kawin tersebut dari pihak pihak pengadilan pasca adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut.ABSTRACTThe children who borns from illegitimate marriage will create on the status of a child born out of wedlock. The normative consequence from that matter is there is no legal relationship between a child and his biological father. This condition surely remove the constitutional rights of child. The existence of Constitutional Court of Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 become the answer for the child who born out of wedlock to reclaim their rights. The constitutional court decision focus on two things: child protection and the responsibility of the biological father through evidence. This constitutional court decision become a reference by district court in dealing with the problem of a child born out of wedlock. The result of this research concluded, by some district cout decision that analys in this reseach, that there is an incinsistencies judges decision in giving judicial consideration in concerned with the legal status of a child born out of wedlock. So, there should be a clarification on rules and procedures which regulates the biological father of the external marriage child from the court after the constitutional court decision.;The children who borns from illegitimate marriage will create on the status of a child born out of wedlock. The normative consequence from that matter is there is no legal relationship between a child and his biological father. This condition surely remove the constitutional rights of child. The existence of Constitutional Court of Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 become the answer for the child who born out of wedlock to reclaim their rights. The constitutional court decision focus on two things: child protection and the responsibility of the biological father through evidence. This constitutional court decision become a reference by district court in dealing with the problem of a child born out of wedlock. The result of this research concluded, by some district cout decision that analys in this reseach, that there is an incinsistencies judges decision in giving judicial consideration in concerned with the legal status of a child born out of wedlock. So, there should be a clarification on rules and procedures which regulates the biological father of the external marriage child from the court after the constitutional court decision., The children who borns from illegitimate marriage will create on the status of a child born out of wedlock. The normative consequence from that matter is there is no legal relationship between a child and his biological father. This condition surely remove the constitutional rights of child. The existence of Constitutional Court of Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 become the answer for the child who born out of wedlock to reclaim their rights. The constitutional court decision focus on two things: child protection and the responsibility of the biological father through evidence. This constitutional court decision become a reference by district court in dealing with the problem of a child born out of wedlock. The result of this research concluded, by some district cout decision that analys in this reseach, that there is an incinsistencies judges decision in giving judicial consideration in concerned with the legal status of a child born out of wedlock. So, there should be a clarification on rules and procedures which regulates the biological father of the external marriage child from the court after the constitutional court decision.]"

"Barang mewah bukan merupakan hal yang esensial bagi kehidupan manusia. Di sisi lain, kondisi lingkungan hidup, termasuk kualitas udara, semakin menurun sehingga banyak negara memberikan relaksasi fiskal terhadap mobil listrik namun Indonesia masih mengklasifikasikan mobil listrik sebagai obyek PPnBM. Oleh karena itu penelitian ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian normatif yuridis untuk menjawab dua permasalahan, yakni; Bagaimana pengaturan klasifikasi barang mewah terhadap mobil listrik dalam perspektif hukum pajak? dan bagaimanakah pengaturan pengenaan dan besaran tarif pajak atas penjualan mobil listrik selaku barang mewah pasca hadirnya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020? Hasil kajian menemukan bahwa mobil listrik merupakan barang mewah karena mobil memang merupakan barang mewah karena hanya dimiliki sebagian kecil rakyat Indonesia dan ketentuan pengenaan PPnBm atas mobil listrik tidak memenuhi asas certainty karena UU Cipta selaku sumber hukum dari PP No. 74 Tahun 2021 yang mengatur mengenai besaran tarif PPnBM atas mobil listrik dinyatakan inkonstitusional bersyarat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tidak memiiki daya ikat.

---

Luxury goods are not essential for human life. On the other hand, environmental conditions, including air quality, are declining so that many countries provide fiscal relaxation for electric cars, but Indonesia still classifies electric cars as PPnBM objects. Therefore, this research was structured using juridical normative research methods to answer two problems, namely; How is the classification of luxury goods for electric cars in the perspective of tax law? and how is the regulation of the imposition and amount of tax rates on the sale of electric cars as luxury goods after the presence of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020? The results of the study found that electric cars are luxury goods because cars are indeed luxury goods because they are only owned by a small number of Indonesian people and the provisions for the imposition of PPnBm on electric cars do not meet the certainty principle because the Copyright Act as a legal source of PP no. 74 of 2021 which regulates the amount of PPnBM tariffs on electric cars is declared conditionally unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court and has no binding power."

"Tesis ini ditulis dengan tujuan untuk mengetahui implikasi pembatalan Undang- Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air terhadap hapusnya privatisasi air dan perizinan pengusahaan sumber daya air oleh swasta. Penelitian menggunakan metode penelitian Yuridis Normatif, pendekatan menggunakan teori penguasaan negara atas sumber daya air, teori hak asasi manusia, dan teori perizinan. Implikasi dibatalkannya UU Sumber Daya Air adalah tidak berlakunya peraturan perundang-undangan sebagai peraturan pelaksana dari UU Sumber Daya Air, sehingga sebagai payung hukum diberlakukan kembali UU Pengairan. Sebagai aturan pelaksana dari UU Pengairan dikeluarkan Surat Edaran Menteri Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, Surat Edaran Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral serta dibentuk Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 121 Tahun 2015 tentang Pengusahaan Sumber Daya Air dan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 122 Tahun 2015 tentang Sistem Penyediaan Air Minum. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diperoleh bahwa pembatalan UU SDA oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah langkah tepat untuk mengembalikan hak rakyat atas air dan menghapuskan privatisasi air. Bahwa UU SDA telah memberikan ruang bagi swasta untuk melakukan penguasaan air atau sumber air yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak, sehingga air dipandang sebagai benda ekonomi dimana perolehannya membutuhkan pengorbanan materi. Pembentukan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 121 dan 122 Tahun 2015 telah mengembalikan prioritas hak menguasai dan mengusahakan sumber daya air kepada negara melalui BUMN dan BUMD. Namun, masih dirasakan bahwa kedua PP ini memberi kesempatan kepada pihak swasta yang telah menjalankan usahanya sebelum adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dapat terus menjalankan usahanya sampai berakhirnya perizinan tersebut.

---

This thesis is written with the aim to determine the implications of the invalidation of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources to the abolishment of the privatization of water and permitting exploitation of water resources by the private sector. This research uses Normative Juridical research methods, with the approach on the theory of state control over water resources, human rights theory, and the theory of licensing. The invalidation of Water Resources Act is causing implementing regulations of the law has been replaced with the previous Water Resources Act. As the implementing rules of The Water Resources Act, The Government has issued a Circular Letter of The Minister of Public Works and Housing, a Circular Letter of The Minister of Energy and Mineral and also established Government Regulation Number 121 of 2015 on Exploitation of Water Resources and Government Regulation Number 122 of 2015 on Water Supply System. Based on the results obtained that the invalidation of the law by the constitutional court is the right step to restore people’s right to water and eliminating water privatization. The law had provided opportunities for the private sector to control water or water resources that vital to the life of many, so the water is seen as an economic goods where materialistic sacrifice is needed to have access for it. The adoption of Government Regulation Number 121 and 122 of 2015 have returned the priority right to control and exploit the water resources to the state-owned or localowned enterprises. Namun, masih dirasakan bahwa kedua PP ini memberi kesempatan kepada pihak swasta yang telah menjalankan usahanya sebelum adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dapat terus menjalankan usahanya sampai berakhirnya perizinan tersebut."

"Anak yang lahir di luar perkawinan hanya mempunyai hubungan perdata dengan ibunya dan juga keluarga ibunya. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010, telah memberikan perubahan terhadap kedudukan anak luar kawin. Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010 dikatakan bahwa anak luar kawin dapat memiliki hubungan keperdataan dengan ayahnya apabila dapat dibuktikan memiliki hubungan darah berdasarkan ilmu pengetahuann dan tekonologi dan/atau alat bukti lain menurut hukum. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut tidak mengatur mengenai ruang lingkup atau sejauh mana hubungan keperdataan antara anak luar kawin dengan ayah biologisnya. Permasalahan yang akan dikaji dalam penelitian ini adalah mengenai kedudukan anak luar kawin sebelum dan sesudah dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010, apakah hubungan keperdataan yang terdapat antara anak luar kawin dengan ayahnya termasuk pula hak mewaris atau tidak, serta melihat bagaimanakah penerapan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010 mengenai kedudukan anak luar kawin dalam Penetapan Nomor 0156/Pdt.P/2013/PA.JS, Penetapan Nomor 0008/Pdt.P/2013/PA.Yk, Penetapan Nomor 183/Pdt.P/2015/PN.Sda, dan Penetapan Nomor 229/Pdt.P/2015/PN.Kdl. Penelitian ini termasuk ke dalam penelitian yuridis normatif yang diuraikan secara deskriptif. Dari hasil penelitian ini dapat diketahui bahwa setelah dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010 anak luar kawin tidak hanya memiliki hubungan keperdataan dengan ibunya saja, tetapi anak luar kawin juga memiliki hubungan keperdataan dengan ayah biologisnya, dan hubungan keperdataan tersebut termasuk juga hak mewaris antara anak luar kawin dengan ayah biologisnya.

---

Illegitimate child has only a civil relation with their mother and their mother?s family. Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 has provided a change the position of illegitimate children. Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 has revised legal relation of illegitimate child with their biological father. Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 proclaimed that the illegitimate child may have civil relations with their biological father if it is proven scientifically that the children are related or tied by filiations, and/or other evidence according to the law. The Constitutional Court Decision does not regulate the scope or extent of civil relationship between the illegitimate child and their biological father. Issues examined in this research are about status of illegitimate child previous to and post Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010, whether the relationship of civil between illegitimate child and their father including the inheritance rights or not, and the applications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 regarding the status of illegitimate child in Ascertainment Number 0156/Pdt.P/2013/PA.JS, Ascertainment Number 0008/Pdt.P/2013/PA.Yk, Ascertainment Number 183/Pdt.P/2015/PN.Sda, and Ascertainment Number 229/Pdt.P/2015/PN.Kdl. This research is based on normative juridical method elaborated descriptively. Through this research, we learn that after the application of Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010, illegitimate child not only have civil relation with their mother but also with their biological father, that includes the inheritance right."