Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Legal certainty is an important factor in the tax management in any country, considering that in general taxes do not offer direct reward to the community. On the other hand, taxes directly impose additional burden on the community. Therefore the tax collection should take legal certainty into consideration to ensure fair treatment. One of the Decrees of the Director General of Taxation which becomes a controversy in the business world and often becomes a topic for debate among the tax experts is the policy of the Director General of Taxation formulated in the Letter Number: S-1651PJ.31211992. The provision regulates the fiscal correction to the companies which take a loan from the shareholders. Taxpayers are of the opinion that the policy does not make sense, since in practice the provision brings about fiscal correction which is based on assumption. The fact is that the Tax Court always passes the judgment stating that the taxpayer wins the case in the disputes related to the transaction. Despite the fact that the Directorate General of Taxation has lost the case many times in the Court of Appeal, the Directorate General of Taxation has not changed the policy to regulate the transaction of loan from the shareholders. The foregoing matter underlies the normative research which carries out a study on the legal provision on the transaction of loan from the shareholders. The normative research aims to discover how other countries regulate the transaction and to compare it with the prevailing provisions in Indonesia; how the Tax Court passes the judgment stating that the taxpayer wins the case if the judgment is compared to the provisions formulated in the Letter of Director General of Taxation, how the issuance and use of the Letter of Director General of Taxation is observed from the principles of authority delegation and the principles of discretion. The research is descriptive and explanatory by employing the data collection instrument in the form of documents study, namely in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The result of the normative research indicates that the provisions in the Letter of the Director General of Taxation Number: S-1651PJ.31211992 is in contradictory with the judgment of the Tax Court and the provisions in the income Tax Act. In passing the judgment stating that the taxpayer wins the case the Tax Court employs the principles of Substance Over Form Rule which relies more on the material truth as the requirements for the burden of proof. 'While the Income Tax Act delegates the authority to the Director General of Taxation to determine the debt to equity ratio. Whereas observed from the principles of authority delegation, the Letter of the Director General of Taxation is not in conformity with the authority of the Director General of Taxation based on the Income Tax Act to solve the case in the transaction. Likewise, if the regulation is observed from the principles of discretion, the provisions made should not employ free discretion, but employs restricted discretion which still refers to the provisions contained in the law. In various countries, the transaction is classified as special relation transaction that has a potential to incur losses, namely in the form of the potential loss in the national revenue of a country. Therefore many countries stipulate provisions which limit the loan from the shareholders by stipulating the debt to equity ratio.

Abstrak :
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis sebab terjadinya sengketa pajak atas pinjaman dari pemegang saham. Penelitian ini juga guna memberikan rekomendasi untuk meminimalisasi terjadinya sengketa pajak atas pinjaman dari pemegang saham. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan studi kasus dan dilakukan dengan analisa konten atas putusan pengadilan pajak dan analisis wawancara kepada Fiskus dan Wajib Pajak. Sengketa pinjaman dari pemegang saham terdiri dari sengketa formal dan sengketa materiil. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa sengketa formal pinjaman dari pemegang saham terjadi karena pelaksanaan dan penerapan peraturan perpajakan, sedangkan sengketa materiil berkaitan dengan loan terms, debt ratio, dan interest rate. Maka dari itu, penelitian ini memberikan solusi bagi Direktorat Jenderal Pajak (DJP) dan Wajib Pajak (WP) untuk mengurangi sengketa pinjaman dari pemegang saham terjadi kembali. DJP dapat membuat kebijakan dan peraturan terkait cash pooling dan tarif bunga pinjaman. Solusi yang dapat diberikan kepada WP yaitu mengadakan pelatihan dan Focus Group Discussion (FGD) terkait perpajakan, membuat pertemuan atau berkonsultasi aktif dengan Account Representative (AR), memperhatikan ketentuan formal atas transaksi meskipun dilakukan antar perusahaan satu grup. Keterbatasan penelitian ini adalah masih terdapat data putusan yang tidak masuk didalam penelitian ini dan terdapat data putusan yang tidak terbaca dikarenakan hasil putusan merupakan hasil scan manual yang diunduh dari website Pengadilan Pajak. ......This research aims to analyze the causes of tax disputes over loans from shareholders. This research is also intended to provide recommendations for minimizing the occurrence of tax disputes over loans from shareholders. This research is qualitative research with a case study approach and was carried out using content analysis of tax court decisions and analysis of interviews with the Fiscus and Taxpayers. Loan disputes from shareholders consist of formal disputes and material disputes. The results of this research show that formal loan disputes from shareholders occur due to the implementation and application of tax regulations, while material disputes relate to loan terms, debt ratios and interest rates. Therefore, this research provides a solution for the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) and Taxpayers to reduce loan disputes from shareholders occurring again. DGT can make policies and regulations related to cash pooling and loan interest rates. Solutions that can be given to taxpayers are holding training and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) related to taxation, holding meeting or actively consulting with Account Representatives (AR), paying attention to formal provisions for transactions even though they are carried out between companies of the same group. The limitation of this research is that there is still decision data that is not included in this research and there is decision data that cannot be read because the decision results are the results of manual scans downloaded from the Tax Court website.

Abstrak :
Amerika Serikat mengenal equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization sebagai doktrin yang bertujuan memastikan perlindungan bagi para kreditur dari tindakan tidak adil yang dilakukan oleh kreditur (terutama pemegang saham kreditur) lainnya. Di sisi lain, Indonesia tidak mengenal doktrin-doktrin ini. Namun, Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 telah menerapkan doktrin debt recharacterization terhadap pinjaman pemegang saham dengan mengacu pada UU KPKPU dan, khususnya, Pasal 3 ayat (2) UU PT. Walaupun demikian, kedua instrumen hukum tersebut tidak mengatur secara eksplisit mengenai penerapan doktrin debt recharacterization. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini akan menganalisis (1) pengaturan dan penerapan doktrin debt recharacterization di Indonesia; (2) pengaturan dan penerapan doktrin equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization di Amerika Serikat; serta (3) perbandingan pengaturan dan penerapan kedua doktrin tersebut di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat. Melalui penelitian dengan metode yuridis normatif dan pendekatan kualitatif, dapat disimpulkan sebagai berikut. Pertama, hukum kepailitan di Indonesia memberikan perlindungan bagi para kreditur dalam memperoleh hak mereka dan pencegahan tindakan debitur yang merugikan kreditur. Dalam hal ini, penerapan doktrin debt recharacterization memberikan dimensi perlindungan tambahan, yakni pencegahan tindakan pemegang saham kreditur yang merugikan kreditur lainnya. Kedua, hukum kepailitan Indonesia tidak mengatur secara eksplisit mengenai doktrin debt recharacterization, tetapi Mahkamah Agung telah memastikan keberadaan doktrin tersebut dalam Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010. Adapun hukum kepailitan Amerika Serikat hanya mengandung pengaturan yang eksplisit mengenai doktrin equitable subordination, tetapi tidak mengenai doktrin debt recharacterization. Walaupun demikian, kedua doktrin tersebut telah dikembangkan oleh berbagai pengadilan di Amerika Serikat. Ketiga, pengaturan dan penerapan doktrin equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization di Amerika Serikat telah jauh lebih berkembang dibandingkan dengan di Indonesia. Walaupun demikian, terdapat beberapa kemiripan antara doktrin debt recharacterization yang terdapat di Indonesia dengan masing-masing doktrin equitable subordination dan debt recharacterization yang terdapat di Amerika Serikat. ......The United States recognizes equitable subordination and debt recharacterization as doctrines aimed at ensuring protection for creditors from inequitable conduct by other creditors (especially shareholder-creditors). On the other hand, Indonesia does not recognize these doctrines. However, Mahkamah Agung in Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 has applied the debt recharacterization doctrine to shareholder loans by referring to UU KPKPU and, in particular, Article 3 paragraph (2) of UU PT. Nevertheless, these legal instruments do not explicitly regulate the application of the debt recharacterization doctrine. Therefore, this study will analyze (1) the regulation and application of the debt recharacterization doctrine in Indonesia; (2) the regulation and application of the equitable subordination and debt recharacterization doctrines in the United States; and (3) the comparison of the regulation and application of these two doctrines in Indonesia and the United States. Through research using normative juridical method and qualitative approach, the following conclusions can be drawn. Firs, the bankruptcy law in Indonesia provides protection for creditors in obtaining their rights and preventing debtor actions that harm creditors. In this regard, the application of the debt recharacterization doctrine adds an additional dimension to that protection, namely preventing shareholder-creditors actions that harm other creditors. Second, Indonesian bankruptcy law does not explicitly regulate the debt recharacterization doctrine, but Mahkamah Agung has ensured the existence of this doctrine in Putusan No. 1038 K/Pdt.Sus/2010. As for the United States bankruptcy law, it only contains explicit regulations regarding the equitable subordination doctrine, but not regarding the debt recharacterization doctrine. Nevertheless, both doctrines have been developed by various United States courts. Third, the regulation and application of the equitable subordination and debt recharacterization doctrines in the United States have developed much more than in Indonesia. However, there are some similarities between the debt recharacterization doctrine in Indonesia and, respectively, the equitable subordination and debt recharacterization doctrines in the United States.