Indonesia dan Uni Eropa telah mengambil langkah unilateral untuk menerapkanpajak layanan digital. Skripsi ini mengkaji (i) pengaturan pajak layanan digital diIndonesia dan Uni Eropa serta (ii) apakah pengaturan pajak layanan digital tersebutmelanggar kewajiban nondiskriminasi negara anggota WTO dalam GATS. Melaluipenelitian hukum yuridis normatif dan pendekatan perundang-undangan,komparatif, dan kasus, dapat disimpulkan bahwa pertama, pajak layanan digitaldikenal di Indonesia sebagai pajak transaksi elektronik dan diatur dalam peraturanperundang-undangan yang menerapkan kriteria kehadiran ekonomi signifikan. DiUni Eropa, pajak layanan digital diatur melalui Council Directives, di manapengaturan pengenaan pajak tersebut menggunakan metode ring-fencing dankriteria significant economic presence. Kedua, kewajiban nondiskriminasi dalamGATS terdapat dalam Pasal II tentang Most-Favoured Nation dan Pasal XVIItentang National Treatment serta yurisprudensi yang relevan dari putusan WTO.Pengaturan pajak layanan digital Indonesia dan Uni Eropa tidak bersifatdiskriminatif, sebab berdasarkan indikator-indikator yang ada, tidak terbuktiadanya diskriminasi de jure maupun de facto. Saran berdasarkan kesimpulantersebut yaitu bagi Indonesia dan Uni Eropa untuk mempersiapkan bukti yangmenunjukkan tidak adanya perlakuan kurang menguntungkan terhadap negaraanggota WTO tertentu dalam praktik pengenaan pajak layanan digital olehIndonesia dan Uni Eropa apabila terdapat negara anggota yang mengajukan gugatandiskriminasi ke WTO. Selanjutnya, apabila terdapat negara anggota yangmengambil tindakan retaliasi, Indonesia dan Uni Eropa disarankan untukmengajukan gugatan diskriminasi ke WTO atas tindakan retaliasi tersebut.
Indonesia and the European Union (EU) have taken unilateral actions to implementdigital services tax. This thesis examines (ii) digital services tax regulation inIndonesia and the EU and (ii) whether the digital services tax regulation violatesthe non-discrimination obligation of WTO members according to the GATS.Through conducting a judicial normative legal research whilst applying a statutory,comparative and case-study approach, it can be concluded that firstly, digitalservices tax in Indonesia is known as an electronic transaction tax and is regulatedby law, which implements significant economic presence criteria. In the EuropeanUnion, digital services tax is regulated through the Council Directives, in which theregulation implements ring-fencing method as well as significant economicpresence criteria. Secondly, the non-discrimination obligations in GATS arepromulgated in Article II concerning Most-Favored Nation Treatment and ArticleXVII concerning National Treatment as well as relevant jurisprudence of WTOcase laws. Indonesia and the EU's digital services tax regulation are notdiscriminatory, because based on existing indicators, the existence of both de jureand de facto discrimination is not proven. The suggestion would be for Indonesiaand the EU to provide evidence that shows the absence of unfavorable treatment ofcertain WTO member states in digital services tax practices by Indonesia and theEU, in the event that there are member states who decides to challenge the measuresto the WTO. Subsequently, in the event that certain member states decide to takeretaliation measures, it is suggested that Indonesia and the EU challenge saidmeasure to the WTO. |
