Bagiaarta, IPutu (2012) Pengaturan Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak Pertambahan Nilai melalui Pengadilan Pajak (Kajian Kepastian Hukum dan Keadilan). Doctor thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.
Abstract
Sebagai konsekuensi Negara Indonesia adalah negara hukum, maka pemungutan pajak wajib diatur dengan Undang-undang. Cara menghitung, menyetor dan melaporkan pajak berdasarkan asas self assessment dikaitkan dengan perubahan pola bisnis yang tidak sinkron dengan regulasi perpajakan disatu pihak, dengan meletakkan kewenangan fiskus menerbitkan Surat Ketetapan Pajak, maka tindakan yang diambil oleh fiskus dikatagorikan sebagai official assessment. Contohnya Pasal 13 ayat (1) huruf a Undang-undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan antara lain mengatur …Direktur Jenderal Pajak dapat menerbitkan Surat Ketetapan Pajak Kurang Bayar apabila berdasarkan hasil pemeriksaan atau keterangan lain pajak yang terutang tidak atau kurang dibayar. Sehingga Surat Ketetapan Pajak, oleh wajib pajak disengketakan karena dianggap tidak ada kepastian hukum dan tidak adil. Selanjutnya, wajib pajak berhak mengajukan keberatan kepada Direktur Jenderal Pajak, apabila keberatannya ditolak, wajib pajak berhak mengajukan banding ke Pengadilan Pajak. Pada kenyataannya syarat mengajukan banding terdapat konflik secara internal antara Pasal-pasal yang mengatur batas waktu 3(tiga) bulan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 35 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) yang kemudian Pasal tersebut diperlemah oleh Pasal 50 ayat (3) bahwa kelengkapan dan/atau kejelasan dimaksud dapat diberikan dalam persidangan. Kemudian konflik secara eksternal antara Pasal 27 ayat (3) Undang-undang Ketentuan Umum Dan Tata Cara Perpajakan antara lain mengatur permohonan diajukan dalam waktu tiga bulan sejak keputusan diterima. Syarat tiga bulan tersebut berdasarkan Pasal 35 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-undang Pengadilan Pajak, tidak mengikat apabila jangka waktu dimaksud tidak dapat dipenuhi karena keadaan di luar kekuasaan pemohon banding. Permasalahan disertasi ini adalah, pertama apakah pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa pajak pertambahan nilai melalui Pengadilan Pajak memberi kepastian hukum bagi wajib pajak? Kedua apakah pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa pajak pertambahan nilai melalui Pengadilan Pajak memberi keadilan bagi wajib pajak? Penelitian ini dikualifikasikan sebagai penelitian hukum normatif dengan beberapa pendekatan yakni : pendekatan Undang-undang, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konsep. Pembahasan atas kedua permasalahan di atas didasarkan pada norma hukum yang berlaku sesuai dengan wewenang siapa pemungutan pajak pada jenis Pajak Pertambahan Nilai. Pendekatan kasus dilakukan dengan menganalisis putusan-putusan Pengadilan Pajak yang berdimensi penormaan kepastian dan keadilan dalam praktek hukum. Pendekatan konsep digunakan untuk mencari makna atau pengertian dari bahan-bahan hukum yang berkaitan dengan permasalahan hukum dalam penelitian ini. Adapun teori yang dipergunakan sebagai pisau analisis adalah teori negara hukum, teori keadilan, teori kepastian hukum, teori kewenangan, teori pemungutan pajak daya pikul dan daya beli, konsep subjek pajak, pengusaha kena pajak, bukan pengusaha kena pajak, objek pajak. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah secara teoritis, pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa Pajak Pertambahan Nilai melalui Pengadilan Pajak dijumpai adanya konflik norma, namun demikian kelemahan tersebut dalam praktek terselesaikan oleh ketentuan Undang-undang Pengadilan Pajak, seperti terkait berbagai persyaratan yang ditetapkan bagi hakim yang profesional, berwibawa dan mempunyai keahlian di bidang perpajakan menghasilkan putusan Pengadilan Pajak yang menjamin kepastian hukum. Demikian pula penetapan putusan Pengadilan Pajak sebagai putusan akhir dan mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap (Pasal 77 ayat (1)) dengan tetap memberikan jaminan perlindungan hukum berupa hak kepada wajib pajak menempuh upaya peninjauan kembali ke Mahkamah Agung (Pasal 77 ayat (2)). Pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa Pajak Pertambahan Nilai memberi keadilan bagi wajib pajak, karena diputus oleh hakim Pengadilan Pajak yang mempunyai keahlian di bidang perpajakan, professional dan berintegritas. Sementara itu wajib pajak mulai dari proses pemeriksaan diberi hak menyatakan setuju/tidak setuju saat diadakan clossing conference dan berhak mengajukan keberatan serta banding ke Pengadilan Pajak sampai upaya hukum peninjauan kembali ke Mahkah Agung. Pada pihak lain, semua putusan yang diberikan oleh Pengadilan Pajak disertai dengan irah-irah `„DEMI KEADILAN BERDASARKAN KETUHANAN YANG MASA ESA`, yang juga dijumpai pada Keputusan fiskus tentang Surat Paksa, sehingga keadilan tidak saja diperoleh pada tingkat banding tetapi wajib pajak juga bisa mendapatkannya dari fiskus.
English Abstract
As the consequence of Indonesia as the law state, so the tax collection should be regulated by Law. The way to calculate, pay and report the tax based on self assessment principle associated with business pattern changes which is not synchronous with the tax regulation in one hand, by putting the tax collector ‟ s authority to issue Tax Ordinance Letter, then the action taken by the tax collector is categorized as official assessment. For example Article 13 paragraph (1) letter a General Provision and Taxation Procedures Law among others regulates that …. Director General of Taxes can issue Tax Ordinance Letter of Underpayment if based on the investigation results or other information that tax payable is not paid or less paid. So that Tax Ordinance Letter, by the tax payer is in dispute since it is considered that it has no legal certainty and unfair. Furthermore, tax payer has the right to submit the objection to Director General of Taxes, and if the objection is rejected, the tax payer has the right to submit the appeal to the Tax Court. In fact the terms to submit the appeal have the conflict internally between the articles that regulate the time limit of 3 (three) months as mentioned in Article 35 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) which further the article has been weakened by Article 50 paragraph (3) that preparedness and/or clarification mentioned could be provided in the court. Subsequently the conflict externally between Article 27 paragraph (3) of General Provision and Taxation Procedures Law among others regulate the request submitted in the period of three months since the decision is accepted. The term of three months is based on Article 35 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) Tax Court Law, is not bound if the period of time mentioned could not be fulfilled because of the situation beyond the power of the appeal requester. The problem of this dissertation is, first whether the regulation of dispute settlement regarding value added tax through the Tax Court providing legal certainty for the tax payer? Second whether the regulation of dispute settlement regarding value added tax through the Tax Court providing justice for the tax payer? This research is qualified as the normative legal research with several approaches which are: the Legal approach, the case approach, and the concept approach. The discussion regarding the above two problems is based on the applicable legal norms in accordance with the authority of who the tax collector of the Value Added Tax is. The case approach is conducted by analyzing the decisions of the Tax Court which has the dimension of certainty and justice norms in the practice of law. Concept approach is used to seek for the meaning or the understanding of the law materials which associated with the legal dispute in this research. As for the theory being used as the analysis blade is the theory of the law state, the theory of justice, theory of law certainty, theory of authority, theory of tax collection burden and purchasing power, the tax subject concept, taxable employer, taxable non employer, tax payer. The conclusion of this research is theoretically, the regulation of the dispute settlement of Value Added Tax through the Tax Court found to be having the norm conflict, however the weakness in the practice is settled by the regulation of the Tax Court Law, such as associated with the terms as stipulated for the professional judges, commanding and have skills in the tax field will generate the decisions of the Tax Court that guarantee the legal certainty. Likewise the stipulation of the Tax Court ‟ s decisions as the final decisions and legally enforceable (Article 77 paragraph (1)) while providing the legal protection guarantee in the form of the right to tax payer to take the legal effort of reconsideration to the Supreme Court (Article 77 paragraph (2)). The regulation of the dispute settlement of Value Added Tax provides the justice for tax payer, since it is decided by the Tax Court judges who have the skill in the tax field, professional and have integrity. Meanwhile the tax payer since the investigation process is provided the right to declare agree/disagree when closing conference is held and has the right to submit the objection along with the appeal to the Tax Court until the legal effort of reconsideration to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, all the decisions provided by the Tax Court accompanied with the slogan `FOR JUSTICE BASED ON THE ALMIGHTY GOD`, which also found in the tax collector ‟ s decision regarding Forced Letter, so that the justice not only obtained in the appeal level but the tax payer also can receive it from the tax collector.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctor) |
|---|---|
| Identification Number: | DES/343.055/BAG/p/061204261 |
| Subjects: | 300 Social sciences > 343 Military, defense, public property, public finance, tax, commerce (trade), industrial law |
| Divisions: | S2/S3 > Doktor Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum |
| Depositing User: | Endro Setyobudi |
| Date Deposited: | 12 Jul 2013 11:11 |
| Last Modified: | 12 Jul 2013 11:11 |
| URI: | http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/160853 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |