Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Perbedaan persepsi dan interprestasi Undang-undang perpajakan beserta peraturan pelaksanaannya yang dikaitkan dengan validitas bukti dalam pelaksanaan peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang perpajakan mengakibatkan sengketa antara Direktorat Jendral pajak (fiskus) dengan Wajib pajak. Dalam memberikan keadilan di bidang perpajakan dilakukan melalui prosedur pengajuan keberatan dan banding. Penyelesaian sengketa banding di Pengadilan Pajak merupakan usaha pemulihan hak Wajib Pajak sebagai upaya penegakan hukum. Terhadap penyelesaiannya tersebut maka diperlukan beberapa alat bukti penunjang, salah satunya adalah alat bukti Pengetahuan Hakim. Akan tetapi, Pengetahuan Hakim tidak dapat dengan serta merta berdiri karena harus ada alat penunjang lainnya. Dengan adanya alat bukti lain yang telah diberikan akan menguatkan keyakinan Hakim dalam menyusun putusannya dikarenakan Hakim akan memberikan penafsiran dengan menginterpretasikan peraturan perundang-undangan perpajakan yang dapat jauh berbeda dengan apa yang ditetapkan fiskus.

---

The differences of perception and interpretation concerning on Tax Regulation along with the rules of its implementation which was related with the validity of the implementation in Tax Regulations cause the dispute between government (Direktorat Jendral Pajak) with the tax payer should be done through the procedure of filing objections and the appeal. The Dispute Resolution in the Court of tax appeals is the form a taxpayer's right to recovery efforts as law enforcement efforts. The solution is then required some evidence supporting in which one of them is a proof of the knowledge of judges. However the knowledge of judges cannot necessarily be standing with because there must be other supporting tools. The existence of other proofs that has been granted will strengthen the judge's belief in drawing up the verdict of judges because the judge will give the interpretation by translating Tax Regulation that could be far different than what is determined by Government."

"ABSTRAKIndependensi hakim Pengadilan Pajak berdampak pada keadilan dankepastian hukum dalam keputusan sengketa pajak. Sebagai negara yang sama-samamenganut sistem hukum sipil(civil law) ternyata Sistem Peradilan Pajak Indonesiadan Korea berbeda. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif danbersifat deskriptif analitis, yaitu penelitian yang menganalisis dan menggunakanbahan-bahan kepustakaan sebagai data sekunder dan sebagai batu uji pendekatanyang dipakai adalah Bangalore Principles. Permasalahan pada penelitian ini yaitubagaimana independensi hakim Pengadilan Pajak di dalam sistem hukum diIndonesia dan di Korea dan apakah Pengadilan Pajak Indonesia dan Korea telahmemberikan peluang yang memadai bagi wajib pajak untuk melakukan upayahukum. Hakim Pengadilan Pajak di Indonesia maupun di Korea kurang independenhal tersebut akan mengganggu independensi hakim dalam memutuskan sengketapajak. Dalam sistem hukum Indonesia peluang yang diberikan kepada Wajib Pajakuntuk melakukan upaya hukum dirasa sangat kurang karena putusan PengadilanPajak merupakan putusan bersifat final dan mengikat. Sedangkan dalam sistemhukum Korea peluang upaya hukum dirasa cukup ideal karena mengenal upayahukum banding, kasasi

---

ABSTRACTThe independence of the Tax Court judge affects the fairness and legalcertainty in the decision of tax disputes. As a country that is equally embracingsystem of civil law turns the Tax Justice System Indonesia and Korea are different.This reserach uses the judicial normative method and is descriptive analyticalresearch, which analyses and uses literature as seconday data and as the touchstoneof the approach is the Bangalore Principles. The problem in this research is whetherthe Tax Court judge of Indonesia and Korea independent and whether the Tax Courtof Indonesia and Korea have provided adequate opportunities for taxpayers to makelegal effort. Tax Court judge in Indonesia and Korea are less independent it wouldinterfere with the independence of judges in deciding tax disputes. In the Indonesianlegal system the opportunity provided to the taxpayer to take legal actionsconsidered very less because the Tax Court's decision is final and binding decision.While in the Korean legal system is considered sufficient opportunities idealremedy because it has provided appeal, cassation and judicial review"

"Pengawasan Hakim Pengadilan Pajak selama ini diatur Pasal 11 ayat 1 dan 2 UU Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak, yang pada pokoknya menegaskan pengawasan Hakim dilakukan oleh Ketua Pengadilan Pajak dan Mahkamah Agung. Hal ini tentu tidak sesuai dengan reformasi kekuasaan kehakiman di mana seharusnya pengawasan Hakim menjadi kewenangan Lembaga yang ditunjuk secara atributif oleh UUD NRI 1945. Dengan bentuk metode penelitian yuridis-normatif, penelitian ini mencari data dengan studi kepustakaan berupa peraturan perundang-undangan dan literatur-literatur terkait. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sejak penandatanganan Nota Kesepahaman (MoU) pada 16 Juli 2010, pengawasan Hakim Pengadilan Pajak dilakukan oleh Kementerian Keuangan, Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial, hal ini dikarenakan model pengawasan Hakim Pengadilan Pajak dipengaruhi oleh model pembinaan pada Pengadilan Pajak, yang masih melibatkan Kementerian Keuangan. Namun secara ideal, pengawasan Hakim Pengadilan Pajak dilakukan secara internal yang terpusat kepada Mahkamah Agung (baik pengawasan teknis peradilan, organisasi, administrasi, keuangan dan pengawasan tingkah laku Hakim secara internal) dan secara eksternal terkait tingkah laku Hakim dilakukan oleh Komisi Yudisial, yang berlandaskan pada Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim.

---

The supervision of Tax Court Judges is currently regulated in Article 11 paragraphs 1 and 2 of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court, which basically emphasizes that the supervision of Judges is carried out by the Head of the Tax Court and the Supreme Court. This is certainly not in accordance with the reform of judicial power so that the supervision of Judges should be the authority of an attributively appointed institution by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. With the form of a juridical-normative research method, this research looks for data by studying literature in the form of legislation and related literature. The results show that since the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on July 16, 2010, the supervision of Tax Court Judges has been carried out by the Ministry of Finance, the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission, this is because the Tax Court Judge's supervision model is influenced by the coaching model at the Tax Court, which still involves Ministry of Finance. However, ideally, the supervision of Tax Court Judges is carried out internally which is centered on the Supreme Court (both technical supervision of the judiciary, organization, administration, finance and supervision of Judge behaviour internally) and externally related to the behaviour of Judges is carried out by the Judicial Commission, which is based on the Judicial Commission. Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for Judges"