Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKJaminan Kesehatan Sosial Nasional Indonesia saat ini dikelola oleh Badan Pengelola Jaminan Sosial Kesehatan melalui Dana Jaminan Sosial Kesehatan. Sejak beroperasinya dari tahun 2014, Dana Jaminan Sosial Kesehatan selalu mengalami defisit dan akhirnya harus dibantu oleh pemerintah dengan subsidi dari APBN. Pola tersebut tentu tidak sehat dan berlawanan dengan prinsip jaminan sosial yang tercantum dalam peraturan perundang-undangan yakni kegotong-royongan. Penyesuaian daripada tariff iuran Dana Jaminan Sosial yang dikelola Badan Pengelola Jaminan Sosial Kesehatan sudah dicoba dilakukan namun mendapat tentangan dari masyarakat. Sistem National Health Insurance di Taiwan pernah mengalami masalah yang sama di tahun 2006. Namun pada saat itu, di samping melakukan penyesuaian iuran, pemerintah Taiwan juga memberikan insenti pajak penghasilan dimana iuran NHI yang dibayarkan sendiri oleh pekerja boleh menjadi pengurang penghasilan bruto. Dengan insentif tersebut, pemerintah Taiwan dapat melakukan penyesuaian-penyesuaian atas iuran NHI tanpa resistensi dari masyarakat. Tesis ini menganalisa perkembangan jaminan kesehatan sosial di Indonesia dan di Taiwan serta perlakuan daripada peraturan perpajakan terhadap iuran Dana Jaminan Sosial tersebut. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pembuat kebijakan di Indonesia masih belum berpikir untuk memberikan insentif pajak karena sifat iuran yang sudah dipaksakan tidak memerlukan lagi fasilitas berupa insentif. Pemikiran ini berbeda dengan pembuat kebijakan di Taiwan yang menggunakan insentif pajak untuk meningkatkan social feasibility masyarakat terhadap penyesuaian nilai iuran jaminan kesehatan, serta sebagai instrumen supply side tax policy untuk menjaga daya konsumsi masyarakat.

---

ABSTRACTIndonesia's National Social Health Insurance is currently managed by the Indonesian Social Security Administration of Health through the Social Security Fund for Health. Since its operation from 2014, the Social Security Fund for Health always suffers deficits and ultimately must be assisted by the government with subsidies from the state budget. This pattern is certainly not efficient and contrary to the principle of social security which is mutual cooperation between people. In the past time, the adjustment of the contributions rate has been attempted by the government but it got a resistance from the public. The National Health Insurance system in Taiwan had experienced similar problems in 2006. But at that time, in addition to adjusting the contributions rate, the Taiwanese government also provided income tax incentives in which NHI contributions paid by employees is treated as tax deduction for the taxable income. With these incentives, the Taiwanese government can make adjustments to NHI contributions rate without notable resistance from the public. This thesis analyzes the development of social health insurance in Indonesia and in Taiwan as well as the treatment of the tax regulations on the Social Security Fund. The results show that policy makers in Indonesia do not think of providing tax incentives because the contributios have already been forced and it no longer needs the facilities in the form of tax incentives. While in the other hand, Taiwanese policy makers use tax incentives to increase the social feasibility of the public towards the policy of the adjustment of the Social Security Fund contributions, as well as the supply side tax policy instrument to safeguard people's consumption power. "

"Pengadilan Pajak selaku penyelenggara kekuasaan kehakiman atas sengketa pajak terus menerus memproses sengketa pajak terkait pembuktian materi atau angka akuntansi padahal proses peradilan pajak telah dimulai sejak proses keberatan di Direktorat Jenderal Pajak. Proses persidangan atas pembuktian materi angka tersebut biasa dilakukan dalam persidangan dalam suatu wadah yang disebut proses uji bukti. Pada praktiknya, proses uji bukti ini tidak jauh berbeda dengan proses keberatan di Direktorat Jenderal Pajak, namun mengapa hasil putusan Majelis Hakim bisa berbeda dengan Keputusan Keberatan oleh Direktur Jenderal Pajak? Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Pajak menerapkan sistem pembuktian yang lebih komprehensif dan menyeluruh jika dibandingkan dengan Direktur Jenderal Pajak dalam proses penelaahan keberatan.Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dan bertujuan untuk mengetahui dasar hukum serta fungsi dan tujuan proses uji bukti dalam persidangan di Pengadilan Pajak, serta kegunaannya sebagai alat bukti bagi hakim dalam membuat putusan. Selain itu penulis juga menganalisa alasan mengapa sampai perlu dilakukan uji bukti yang praktiknya tidak jauh berbeda dengan proses pemeriksaan dan keberatan di Direktorat Jenderal Pajak. Data-data berupa data primer yang diperoleh dari wawancara dan data sekunder berupa dokumendokumen dalam bentuk data, teks dan data statistik.Hasil penelitian mendapatkan kesimpulan bahwa dasar hukum dari proses uji bukti belum kuat, fungsi uji bukti untuk memberi kesempatan bagi wajib pajak untuk memberikan sebanyak mungkin bukti yang relevan dengan sengketa, sedangkan kegunaanya adalah memberi kemudahan bagi Majelis Hakim untuk memilah serta menilai bukti-bukti yang diberikan oleh Wajib Pajak dalam proses banding di Pengadilan Pajak. Sedangkan alasan dari masih perlu dilakukannya uji bukti yang pada praktiknya tidak jauh berbeda dengan proses pemeriksaan dan keberatan adalah karena kontradiksi-kontradiksi di dalam peraturan terkait sistem peradilan pajak di Indonesia.

---

The tax court as the judicial power over tax disputes in Indonesia is continuously process the tax dispute related to evidentiary materials or the accounting record while we know that the tax litigation had been started since the process of objection at the Directorate General of Taxes. In the court room of the Tax Court there?s an activity that been used to process this kind of dispute that called the Test of Evidence. In practice, the process of this Test of Evidence is not much different from the process of objection at the Directorate General of Taxes, but the question is why the result of the Tribunal Judges can be different with the decision by the Director General of Taxes?

The results of this study show that the Tribunal Judges of Indonesia Tax Court applies a more comprehensive verification system compared to the common practice used by the Director General of Taxes in the process of Tax Objection.

This study uses qualitative methods and aims to know the legal basis as well as the functions and purpose of the Test of Evidence in the trial in the tax court, as well as its use as a means of evidence for the judge in making the ruling. In addition the author also analyzes the reasons why that the test of evidence is still needed when the practice is not much different with the audit process and objection process at the Directorate General of Taxes. The primary data obtained from interviews and secondary data is in the form of documents, text and statistical data.

Research results get the conclusion that the legal basis of the process is not powerful enough, the function of test of evidence is to give an opportunity for taxpayers to give relevant evidences as many as possible, while the other purpose is to give ease to the Tribunal judges to sort out and evaluate the evidences given by the Taxpayer in the process of an appeal in the tax court. While the important reason that this test of evidence is needed when in practical there?s not much different with the objection process is because of contradictions in the rules relating to the judicial system in Indonesia."