Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Obligation Transaction Income Tax Policy Justice and Legal Certainty Principle ReviewA progressive obligation market expansion in Indonesia has made Government released Governmental Regulation Number 6 Year 2002 representing a law execution regulation. However, there have been still many issues not yet regulated resulting in confusion among taxpayers.Income accepted or taken from obligation transactions is one of incomes on a global taxation base. Thus, its is fair that income accepted or taken from obligation transactions combined with another incomes and taxable with a progressive rate. The main problem of this thesis is how should an obligation transaction income tax be regulated to make all economic ability additions accepted or taken from obligation transaction fairly taxable.This thesis is a descriptive analytic in type and data collection techniques used are (1) literature research including on various taxation regulations and another related documents and (2) field research using interviews with such related parties as tax administrator, tax consultant, and capital market administrator. Also, author has sent 10 (ten) questionnaires to taxpayers.Taxation policy of year 2002 has been inconsistent with Income Tax Law in cases of (1) deduction in final income tax (Pajak Penghasilan/PPh) on transaction value imposed only on transactions tradable and reportable to the stock exchange, has been inconsistent with global taxation and regulated no all transactions taking place in both primary market and secondary market, and guaranteed no a justice principle in tax imposition as well, (2) existence of tax exemption to certain taxpayers illustrating a chance for the taxpayers to conduct tax evasion, and (3) inexistence of premium income tax accepted or taken by taxpayers from obligation transactions.Therefore, it is suggested to make a comprehensive and consistent policy consistent with the one obeyed by Income Tax Law by taking the following tax imposition principles into consideration: (1) tax imposition, at the time of realization and implementation of global taxation, on all economic ability additions accepted or taken by taxpayers from obligation transactions, (2) equality in taxation treatment without differentiating type, source of party accepting income from those obligation transaction, and (3) reference of regulation concerning taxation on premium income accepted or taken by taxpayer from obligation transactions.xv + 145 + 5 tables + 2 pictures + 2 graphs + 3 appendices Bibliography: 40 books + 7 law and regulation + 5 journals/papers"

"Pengajuan peninjauan kembali oleh jaksa penuntut umum, dan penerimaan pengajuan tersebut oleh Mahkamah Agung telah menimbulkan pro dan kontra dalam masyarakat, ada yang berpendapat bahwa putusan-putusan tersebut telah mencederai asas kepastian hukum dan ada juga yang berpendapat bahwa putusan-putusan tersebut merupakan putusan yang tepat sekaligus sebagai wujud penerapan asas persamaan di hadapan hukum yang terdapat di dalam hukum acara pidana. Atas kondisi ini Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui putusan nomor 33/PUU-XIV/2016 berusaha mengakhiri pro dan kontra yang ada. Namun apakah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut telah memenuhi asas kepastian hukum dan asas persamaan di hadapan hukum yang terdapat dalam sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia. Dengan metode yuridis normatif dan melakukan wawancara kepada beberapa narasumber, penelitian ini hendak membahas 2 (dua) pertanyaan penelitian: Pertama, mengenai keterkaitan antara kepentingan korban dan kepentingan umum dengan peran dan wewenang jaksa dalam sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia. Kedua, mengenai bagaimana putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 33/PUU-XVI/2016 terhadap pemenuhan asas kepastian hukum dan asas persamaan di hadapan hukum. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa jaksa penuntut umum berperan mewakili kepentingan korban dan kepentingan umum dengan tujuan utama untuk memperjuangkan rasa keadilan yang diharapkan oleh masyarakat. Selain itu, putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 33/PUUXVI/ 2016 telah memberikan kepastian kepada terpidana atau ahli warisnya dan jaksa penuntut umum bahwa mereka dapat mengajukan peninjauan kembali selama terdapat ketentuan tertulis yang dapat memberikan hak dan kewenangan itu. Walau demikian, ternyata putusan tersebut tidak dapat memenuhi asas persamaan di hadapan hukum karena tidak mempersamakan kedudukan antara jaksa penuntut umum dengan terpidana dan ahli warisnya.

---

Judicial review by the public prosecutor, and acceptance of these submissions by the Supreme Court have generated pros and cons in the community, some argue that these decisions have violated the principle of legal certainty and some are of the opinion that these decisions are correct decisions at the same time as a form of application of the principle of equality before the law contained in the criminal procedure law. Due to this condition, the Constitutional Court through decision number 33/PUU-XIV/2016 tried to end the existing pros and cons. However, whether the decision of the Constitutional Court has fulfilled the principle of legal certainty and the principle of equality before the law contained in the criminal justice system in Indonesia. Using the normative method and conducting interviews with several sources, this study intends to discuss 2 (two) research questions: First, regarding the relationship between the interests of victims and the public interest with the role and authority of prosecutors in the criminal justice system in Indonesia. Second, regarding how the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 33 / PUUXVI / 2016 regarding the fulfillment of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of equality before the law. This thesis observes that the public prosecutor has a role to represent the interests of victims and the public interest with the main objective of fighting for the sense of justice that is expected by society. In addition, the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 33 / PUU-XVI / 2016 has provided assurance to the convicted person or their heirs and the public prosecutor that they can submit a review as long as there are written provisions that can provide such rights and powers. However, it turns out that this decision does not fulfill the principle of equality before the law because it does not equalize the position of the public prosecutor and the convict and his heirs."

"Berlakunya peraturan pelaksana Pasal 31 D UU Nomor 36 Tahun 2008 yaitu PP Nomor 25 Tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Penghasilan Kegiatan Usaha Berbasis Syariah pun menunjukkan adanya dukungan Pemerintah Indonesia dalam memberikan kepastian hukum dan mendorong netralitas perpajakan produk perbankan syariah. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis perlakuan kebijakan Pajak Penghasilan (PPh) atas imbalan sukuk dalam produk investasi sukuk negara/ ritel ditinjau dari asas kepastian hukum dan netralitas. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dengan wawancara mendalam kepada narasumber sebagai teknik pengumpulan data. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa prinsip mutatis mutandis yang berlaku sesuai PP Nomor 25 Tahun 2009 memberikan kepastian hukum bagi pengenaan pajak atas penghasilan imbalan sukuk bagi investor dan pemberlakuan tarif PPh atas obligasi syariah yang sama dengan obligasi netral dari segi pajak. Disarankan agar pemerintah membuat evaluasi yang terpisah terkait penerimaan pajak tahunan kegiatan syariah dan non-syariah untuk melihat keseimbangan ekonomi/pasar yang terjadi sehingga keputusan penyetaraan perlakuan pajak antara imbalan sukuk dan bunga obligasi yang diterima investor tetap dipertahankan/tidak sesuai pertimbangan tersebut

---

The enactment of implementing regulations for Article 31 D of Law Number 36 of 2008, namely PP Number 25 of 2009 concerning Income Tax for Sharia-Based Business Activities also shows the support of the Indonesian Government in providing legal certainty and encouraging tax neutrality of Islamic banking products. This research aims to analyze the income policy (PPh) policy on the imbalance of sukuk in the investment product of sovereign sukuk / review in terms of legal certainty and neutrality. The research is conducted using quantitative approach with in-depth interviews as data collecting technique. The results of this research indicate that the mutatis mutandis principle in accordance with Government Regulation No. 25 Year 2009 provides legal certainty for the imposition of taxes on the sukuk yield for investors and the imposition of PPh rates on sharia bonds which are same as bonds, neutral from a tax perspective. It is recommended that the government make a separate evaluation regarding the annual tax revenue for sharia and non-sharia activities to see the economic / market balance that occurs so that the decision to equalize tax treatment between sukuk returns and bond interest received by investors is maintained / not in accordance with these considerations"