Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"Studi ini dilakukan untuk menemukan faktor-faktor yang menjadi penyebab kekalahan DJP di Pengadilan Pajak Indonesia. Belum ditemukan studi ekonomi yang menganalisis secara komprehensif determinan dari kekalahan DJP di Pengadilan Pajak Indonesia yaitu dengan menggunakan data pembuktian, waktu penyelesaian sengketa pajak, nilai awal, jenis pajak, jenis kelamin hakim, jumlah anggota kepaniteraan, keterbukaan perusahaan, kehadiran Wajib Pajak, perwakilan Wajib Pajak, dan jumlah Fiskus yang hadir di persidangan. Dalam penentuan determinan dan tingkat signifikansi masing-masing indikator terhadap probabilitas kekalahan DJP, penelitian ini menggunakan 2 (dua) model estimasi yakni persamaan regresi logistik dan linier probability model (LPM). Hasil estimasi menunjukan bahwa bukti yang diserahkan Wajib Pajak di pemeriksaan/keberatan secara tidak langsung berpengaruh negatif terhadap kekalahan DJP, bukti yang diserahkan Wajib Pajak di persidangan berpengaruh positif terhadap kekalahan DJP, jenis pajak berpengaruh positif terhadap kekalahan DJP, dan jumlah Fiskus berpengaruh positif terhadap kekalahan DJP. Hasil estimasi juga menunjukkan bahwa waktu penyelesaian sengketa pada putusan banding yang mana Wajib Pajak menyerahkan bukti di pemeriksaan dan keberatan secara tidak langsung berpengaruh positif terhadap kekalahan DJP.......This study aims at finding the factors that become the reason for tax administration's loss in Court Indonesian Tax. There has not been found an economic study that analyzes comprehensively the determinants of the loss of the DGT in the Indonesian Tax Court, namely by using evidence data, tax dispute settlement time, initial value, type of tax, gender of judge, number of clerks, company disclosure, presence of taxpayers, representatives Taxpayers, and the number of Fiskus present at the trial. In determining the determinants and significance level of each indicator on the probability of DGT's loss, this study uses 2 (two) estimation models, namely the logistic regression equation and the linear probability model (LPM). The estimation results show that the evidence submitted by the Taxpayer at the audit/objection indirectly has a negative effect on the loss of the DGT, the evidence submitted by the Taxpayer at the trial has a positive effect on the loss of the DGT, the type of tax has a positive effect on the loss of the DGT, and the number of tax authorities has a positive effect on the loss of the DGT. The estimation results also show that the dispute resolution time in the appeal decision in which the Taxpayer submits evidence at the audit and objections indirectly has a positive effect the loss of the DGT."

"Temuan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK) mengenai piutang pajak dalam tujuh tahun terakhir mengindikasikan bahwa Pemerintah belum dapat menatausahakan piutang pajaknya dengan tepat. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi permasalahan penatausahaan piutang pajak di Direktorat Jenderal Pajak (DJP), melakukan perbandingan dengan negara lain, dan memberikan usulan guna mengatasi permasalahan tersebut. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan beberapa permasalahan penatausahaan piutang pajak antara lain sistem yang tidak terintegrasi dan real-time, tidak adanya aplikasi taxpayer account, belum terdapat payung hukum atau interpretasi akuntansi atas beberapa proses bisnis DJP, kurangnya disiplin SDM dalam pelaksanaan tugas dan fungsi, dan minimnya supervisi atasan. Guna mengatasi permasalahan tersebut,penelitian ini menyarankan agar DJP mengintegrasikan sistem-sistem yang ada di DJP, mengembangkan taxpayer account, meningkatkan kualitas SDM dan melakukan supervisi secara berkala, menyusun regulasi berupa revisi PER-08/PJ./2009 dan aturan penegasan untuk proses bisnis DJP yang bersifat recurring,serta membangun sistem pertukaran data yang memadai antara DJP dan Pengadilan Pajak maupun antara DJP dan DJPb."

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini menganalisis basis akuntansi yang tepat untuk mengakui dan mengukur pendapatan pajak penghasilan terkait penerapan akuntansi berbasis akrual di Direktorat Jenderal Pajak (DJP) serta tantangan-tantangan yang dihadapi DJP dalam menerapkan pelaporan keuangan berbasis akrual. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa basis akuntansi yang paling tepat untuk mengakui dan mengukur pendapatan pajak penghasilan adalah akuntansi berbasis akrual modifikasi. Tantangan-tantangan yang dihadapi DJP dalam pelaporan keuangan berbasis akrual adalah sistem informasi yang terpecah-pecah dan tidak terintegrasi, sumber daya manusia yang kurang memadai, komitmen pimpinan yang belum sepenuhnya maksimal, serta risiko penurunan kualitas opini laporan keuangan yang diaudit BPK.

---

ABSTRACT

This study analyzes the proper accounting basis to recognize and measure the income tax revenues related to implementation of accrual accounting in the Directorate General of Taxation (DGT) and the challenges faced by the DGT in applying accrual based financial reporting. This research is qualitative descriptive design. The results show that the most appropriate basis of accounting to recognize and measure the income tax revenue is modified accrual basis of accounting. The challenges faced by the DGT in the accrual based financial reporting is information systems that are fragmented and not integrated, human resources are inadequate, the leadership commitment that has not been fully maximized, and the risk of quality deterioration opinion audited financial statements by BPK."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai pengukuran kinerja organisasi sektor publik menggunakan metode Balanced Scorecard (BSC) sebagai sebuah metode yang terbukti mampu diaplikasikan ke dalam organisasi sektor publik. Selama ini pengukuran kinerja sektor publik masih bersifat internal (proses) dan lebih mengutamakan pencapaian tujuan jangka pendeknya (finansial) dan belum melibatkan unsur non finansial dan pihak eksternalnya. Dalam konsep BSC, unsur-unsur tersebut termasuk dalam faktor-faktor yang mampu mempengaruhi kinerja organisasi dalam mencapai tujuannya, baik dalam jangka pendek maupun jangka panjang. Objek penelitian dalam tesis ini adalah Kantor Pelayanan Pajak (KPP) Pratama Jakarta Tebet, sebagai salah satu instansi di bawah Direktorat Jenderal Pajak (DJP) yang merupakan tulang punggung penerimaan Negara dari sektor pajak. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa kinerja KPP Pratama Jakarta Tebet masuk dalam kriteria baik, dengan beberapa saran dan perbaikan yang perlu dilakukan.

---

This thesis discusses about performance measurement of public sector organization by using Balanced Scorecard (BSC) method. BSC is a method that has been proved can be applied in public sector organization. Performance measurement in public sector, nowadays, doesn?t measure non-financial and external factors. According to BSC, those factors influence organization?s performance in achieving its goals, short-term and long-term goals. The research object is Pratama Tax Service Office Jakarta Tebet as one of unit under General Directorate of Taxes (DJP). The research shows KPP Pratama Jakarta Tebet has good performance. However there are some improvements need to be done."

"Penelitian ini membahas bagaimana penerapan dari program Pengampunan Pajak pada Kanwil DJP Jakarta Selatan II apakah penerapan tersebut sudah sesuai dengna peraturan yang berlaku. Selain itu juga bertujuan untuk meneliti bagaimana hasil dari penerapan program Pengampunan Pajak apakah hasil yang diperoleh telah sesuai dengan usaha yang dikerjakan serta target penerapan tersebut. Program Pengampunan Pajak dilaksanakan mulai 1 Juli 2016 sampai dengan 31 Maret 2017. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan telah dilakukan sesuai dengan aturan yang ada, akan tetapi target program tersebut belum tercapai pada Kanwil DJP Jakarta Selatan II. Hambatan dalam penerapan berasal dari faktor internal dan faktor eksternal menjadi salah satu hal yang mempengaruhi pencapaian target. ......This research discusses how the application of the Tax Amnesty program in Kantor Wilayah DJP Jakarta Selatan II whether the application is in accordance with the applicable regulations. It also aims to examine how the results of the application of the Tax Amnsety program whether the results obtained have been in accordance with the work undertaken as well as the target of the implementation. Tax Amnesty Program was implemented from 1 July 2016 to 31 March 2017. The results show that the implementation has been done in accordance with existing rules, but the program target has not been achieved at the Kanwil DJP Jakarta Selatan II. Barriers to implementation comes from internal factors and external factors, became one of the things that affect the achievement of the targets."

"Transparansi pajak menjadi cara untuk meningkatkan kepatuhan pajak di beberapa negara. Sayangnya, praktik tersebut masih sangat terbatas di Indonesia dikarenakan aspek perlindungan hukum, dan instrumen yang belum banyak dikembangkan. Untuk penelitian ini, akan berfokus kepada pembahasan naming and shaming dan DJP Checking sebagai aktualisasi dari keterbukaan informasi pajak yang memang merupakan bagian dari transparansi pajak. Naming and shaming sendiri merupakan bentuk sanksi perpajakan dengan cara mempublikasikan informasi wajib pajak kepada publik dan DJP Checking merupakan inovasi yang diusung oleh peneliti sebagai alternatif dalam mengoptimalkan kepatuhan pajak. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membahas pelaksanaan keterbukaan informasi pajak dilihat dari perspektif hukum pajak dan hak asasi manusia, serta membahas mengenai batasan dan prasyarat apa yang harus diperhatikan dalam pelaksanaanya, ditambah membahas mengenai prospek penerapan DJP Checking sebagai alternatif kebijakan. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data melalui wawancara mendalam, studi pustaka, dan survey. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwasanya secara hukum pajak pelaksanaan keterbukaan informasi pajak khususnya naming and shaming sulit dilakukan karena kerangka hukum yang belum ada dan masih hanya sebatas kebijakan internal otoritas perpajakan, walaupun sampai sekarang belum ada tidak menutup kemungkinan bahwa suatu saat nanti akan disahkan melalui program legislasi nasional. Selain itu, secara konsep hak asasi manusia pelaksanaan naming and shaming tidak melanggar karena pajak adalah kewajiban wajib pajak dan apabila tidak dilaksanakan maka wajar dikenakan hukuman. Pelaksanaaan naming and shaming memerlukan sebuah batasan yaitu penentuan informasi wajib pajak apa saja yang boleh dipublikasikan ke publik serta beberapa prasyarat yang harus dilakukan sebelum pelaksanaannya. Terkait inovasi DJP Checking, secara prospek penerapan kebijakan tersebut dinilai efektif sebagai alternatif mengoptimalkan kepatuhan pajak karena pelaksanaanya yang terkategorisasi sesuai kepatuhan pajak dan sifatnya yang membatasi fasilitas sosial yang akan didapat oleh wajib pajak apabila terbukti sangat tidak patuh dalam membayar pajak.......Tax transparency is a way to improve tax compliance in some countries. Unfortunately, this practice is still very limited in Indonesia due to aspects of legal protection and instruments that have not been widely developed. For this research, it will focus on the discussion of naming and shaming and DGT Checking as the actualization of tax information disclosure, which is part of tax transparency. By publishing taxpayer information to the public, naming and shaming is a form of tax sanction, and DGT Checking is an innovation promoted by researchers as an alternative to optimize tax compliance. This study aims to discuss the implementation of tax information disclosure from the perspective of tax law and human rights, as well as the limitations and prerequisites that must be considered in its implementation, plus the prospects for implementing DGT Checking as an alternative policy. This research was conducted using a qualitative approach with data collection techniques through in-depth interviews, literature studies, and surveys. The results of this study indicate that in tax law, the implementation of tax information disclosure, especially naming and shaming, is difficult because the legal framework does not yet exist and is still only an internal policy of the taxation authority. Although it has not been legalized until now, it does not rule out the possibility that one day it will be legalized through a legislative program. national. In addition, in the concept of human rights, the implementation of naming and shaming does not violate because taxes are the obligations of taxpayers, and if they are not implemented, it is reasonable to be punished. The implementation of naming and shaming requires a limit, namely the determination of what taxpayer information may be published to the public, as well as several prerequisites that must be carried out before its implementation. Regarding the DGT Checking, the implementation of the policy is considered effective as an alternative to optimizing tax compliance because its implementation is categorized according to tax compliance and its nature is that it limits the social facilities that will be obtained by taxpayers if they are proven to be very non-compliant in paying taxes."

"ABSTRAKDi Indonesia, Direktorat Jenderal Pajak (DJP) adalah badan pemerintahyang bertanggung jawab untuk mengelola pendapatan pajak bagi negara. Salahsatu tugas DJP adalah menyelesaikan sengketa pajak di tingkat administrasi.Penyelesaian sengketa pajak sangat penting untuk memastikan bahwa wajib pajakmemperoleh hak mereka sehubungan dengan penyelesaian sengketa pajak.Data pengadilan pajak menunjukkan bahwa dari tahun 2004 sampai dengantahun 2013 jumlah sengketa pajak yang dibawa ke pengadilan pajak cenderungmeningkat. Kecenderungan ini menunjukkan bahwa sengketa pajak tidak dapatdiselesaikan di tahap awal yaitu tingkat administrasi. Upaya yang selamainidilakukan oleh Direktur Jenderal Pajak untuk mengurangi jumlah kasus dipengadilan pajak terutama dengan peningkatan keterampilan litigasi pegawai sertameningkatkan jumlah sumber daya yang dialokasikan untuk menyelesaikansengketa, mempercepat proses keberatan, dan meningkatkan koordinasi denganpengadilan pajak. Namun, upaya tersebut kurang berhasil mengingat jumlahsengketa di pengadilan pajak tetap tinggi. Kelemahan-kelemahan dari upayatersebut adalah pendekatan yang kurang tepat dalam menyelesaikan sengketa dankegagalan untuk mengidentifikasi jenis sengketa (misalnya sengketa fakta atauinterpretasi hukum). Masalah-masalah mendasar yang menimbulkan kelamahankelemahantersebut adalah banyaknya pemeriksaan berdasar kelebihan bayar danbanyaknya kasus berulang dibawa ke pengadilan pajak. Kelemahan dan masalahmendasar tersebut yang menyebabkan menumpuknya sengketa di pengadilanpajak. Akibatnya, DJP harus mengeluarkan biaya administrasi yang lebih tinggidemikian juga biaya kepatuhan yang harus ditanggung oleh wajib pajak dan untukmenyelesaikan sengketa.Untuk meningkatkan kinerja DJP dalam menyelesaikan sengketa dalamtinjauan administratif. DJP perlu melakukan pendekatan yang lebih komprehensifuntuk menangani penyelesaian sengketa di tahap awal. DJP dapat belajar daripenerapan manajemen sengketa oleh Australia Tax Office (ATO) serta strategiyang diterapkan oleh negara-negara anggota OECD (Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development) dalam menyelesaikan sengketa. Tujuan utamadari manajemen sengketa adalah: menyelesaikan sengketa sedini mungkin untukmeminimalkan biaya penyelesaian sengketa serta untuk menghindari lambatnyapenyelesaian sengketa. Manajemen sengketa menuntut DJP untuk mendefinisikanjenis sengketa secara jelas dan tegas sejak awal serta perlu melibatkan praktisi dibidang perpajakan dalam penyelesaian sengketa. DJP dapat melakukan reorientasistatus quo dengan mengadopsi strategi yang sesuai dari praktek-praktek terbaik diATO dan negara-negara OECD untuk mengurangi menumpuknya kasus dipengadilan pajak. Implementasi kebijakan membutuhkan Kepala DirektoratJenderal Pajak untuk memulai kebijakan sejak kebijakan lebih mungkin berhasildilaksanakan dengan pendekatan top down.

---

ABSTRACTIn Indonesia, the Directorate General of Taxes is a government agencywhich responsible for administering tax revenue collection for the country. One ofthe agency’s tasks is conducting tax dispute resolution in the administrative level.Tax dispute resolution is crucial to ensure that taxpayers can exercise their rightregarding tax dispute resolution.The latest tax court’s report, however, shows that from 2004 until 2013 thenumber of tax disputes brought into the tax court keep increasing. The trendindicates that the agency was not able to resolve the dispute in the earlier stage.The current approach applied by the Director General of Taxes to reduce theincreasing outstanding cases in the tax court is mainly by improvement oflitigation skill of officers as well as increase the number of resources allocated toresolve dispute, accelerating objection process, and improve coordination with thetax court. However, the result of current approach is still limited as the backlogcases in the tax court remain high. The main deficiencies of current approach:unable to resolve the disputes in the earliest stage due to inappropriate resolutionapproach; fail to identify the type of dispute (e.g. dispute over the facts or legalinterpretation), and does not address problem in losing disputes on the sameissues. Fundamental causes that account for the current situation are failure toresolve dispute in the objection process or administrative level; repeated casesbrought to tax court; and refund claim based audit. Those factors combined resultsin inability of the administrative review to work effectively in resolving disputes.Consequently, the administration cost as well as the compliance cost to resolvedispute becomes high for both the taxpayer and the DGT.The paper aims to assist the DGT to improve the performance in resolvingdispute in administrative review. Current policy merely tried to address theimmediate causes but not the fundamental causes. The DGT need a morecomprehensive approach to handle dispute resolution in the earlier stage. Thus,based on the analysis of the fundamental causes, the paper suggests that the DGTcould learn from application of dispute management by Australia Tax Office aswell as effective strategies employed by the OECD (Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development) countries in resolving dispute. The objectives ofdispute management are: resolve dispute at the earliest stage to keep cost ofdispute minimum and to avoid delays. The dispute management requires welldefining type of dispute, dealing the claims promptly, incorporating taxpractitioners to attain the objectives. The paper recommends the DGT toreorienting status quo by adopting suitable strategies of the best practices in ATOand OECD countries to reduce the backlog cases in the tax court. Theimplementation of the policy requires the Head of Directorate General of Taxes toinitiate the policy since the policy more likely to be succeeded implemented by atop down approach."