Tax Court Provides Delightful Romp Through Penalty Provisions

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Keyword(s):  
Tax Court

ANALISIS YURIDIS NORMATIF PUTUSAN PERKARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG KONSTITUSI RI No. 004/PUU-II/2004

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Doni Budiono
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Directorate General ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
Tax Court

The  authority  of justice in Indonesia  is executed by  the Supreme Courts and  the  justice  boards/body under the Supreme Courts, including  the general  justice, religious affairs justice, military justice,  state administration  justice,  and  the Constitution Court. According to  certainty in  the Act of  Tax Court, Article1, clause  (5),  tax  dispute   refers to the legal dispute arising in the  taxation  affairs between the  tax payer or the  body  responsible for the  tax with   the government   executives  ( Directorate General of Tax) as the consequence of   the issue of  the decree for the  appeal  to the Tax  Court in accordance with the  tax Act, including the  charge  against the  execution of collection   in accordance with the  Act of Tax Collection by force. The  formation of Tax Court is  designed by  the Executives, in this case, the  Department of Finance, specifically  the Directorate   General  of Tax  which has the right to issue  law  more technical about  tax accord to Article 14,  letter A,  President Decree  no. 44  year 1974,  concerning the  basic  organization of the Department.  Based on  it,  it  is clear that  in addition to execute the government  rules and policy,  this body  has to execute judicial   rules and policy. This is against the  principles of  Judicative  Power/Authority in Indonesia,  which   clearly states that this body  should be under the Supreme Court.   Therefore. It is suggested that   the Act  No UU no.14 Year 2012 concerning  Tax Court   be revised  in accordance with the system of  Power Division  of Justice  as  stated in 45 Constitutions.

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM WAJIB PAJAK TERHADAP SURAT KEPUTUSAN KEBERATAN DALAM SENGKETA PAJAK

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-165
Author(s):  
Nadia Permata Ekasari Bisinglasi
Keyword(s):  
Final Decision ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
Tax Court

The effect of the law on the appeal by the taxpayer is by the issuance of the Decree of Objection, if in the Decree of Objection the taxpayer also still feel not satisfied then based on Laws of General Provisions of Taxation or UU KUP, the taxpayer is entitled to file the appeal back to the Tax Court. The legal effort of the taxpayer to seek justice becomes disconnected with the provisions of Article 33 paragraph (1) and Article 77 paragraph (1) of Law no. 14 year 2002 stating that the decision of the Tax Court is the final decision in examining and resolving tax disputes, so that no appeal or cassation can be appealed. This resulted in reduced taxpayers' right to seek justice. Allowable legal action is to conduct a Review, and this effort is extraordinary

scholarly journals Menakar Independensi Hakim Pengadilan Pajak Pasca Putusan MK Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 879
Author(s):  
Ananthia Ayu Devitasari
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Power ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Deputy Chairman ◽  
Ministry Of Finance ◽  
Tax Court ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Case Number

AbstrakIndependensi peradilan adalah fondasi utama terwujudnya keadilan dan kepastian hukum. Terkait diskursus independensi kekuasaan kehakiman tersebut, Mahkamah Konstitusi memutus Perkara Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020 yang menguji pasal Pasal 5 ayat (2) dan Pasal 8 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Pengadilan Pajak. Para Pemohon menguji kewenangan pembinaan organisasi, administrasi, dan keuangan bagi Pengadilan Pajak dilakukan oleh Departemen Keuangan, kewenangan Menteri Keuangan untuk mengusulkan ketua dan wakil Ketua Pengadilan Pajak, serta ketiadaan batasan periodesasi jabatan ketua dan wakil ketua. Lebih lanjut, Mahkamah dalam amar putusan a quo menyatakan bahwa ““Ketua dan Wakil Ketua diangkat oleh Presiden yang dipilih dari dan oleh para Hakim yang selanjutnya diusulkan melalui Menteri dengan persetujuan Ketua Mahkamah Agung untuk 1 (satu) kali masa jabatan selama 5 (lima) tahun”. Berangkat dari latar belakang tersebut, kajian ini berusaha menganalisa independensi hakim pengadilan pajak pasca Putusan MK Nomor 10/PUU-XVIII/2020 dengan pendekatan teori independensi peradilan. Kajian ini menunjukkan Putusan Mahkamah tidak hanya mendukung independensi hakim badan peradilan pajak tetapi juga menarik garis demarkasi antara kekuasaan kehakiman dengan kekuasaan eksekutif.AbstractJudicial independence is the main foundation for the of justice and legal certainty. Regarding the discourse on the independence of judicial power, the Constitutional Court decided on Case Number 10 / PUU-XVIII / 2020 which examined Article 5 paragraph (2) and Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court. The Petitioners challenged the authority of Ministry of Finance to develop the organization, administration and finance for the Tax Court, the authority of the Minister of Finance to propose the chairperson and deputy chairman of the Tax Court. Furthermore, the Court in its ruling states that "the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson are appointed by the President who is elected from and by the Judges who are subsequently proposed through the Minister with the approval of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 1 (one) term of office for 5 (five) years". This study examined the independence of the tax court judges after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 10 / PUU-XVIII / 2020 with independent judicial theory approach. This study showed that the Court's decision not only supports the independence of the tax court judges but also draws a demarcation line between judicial power and executive power. 

scholarly journals EKSISTENSI PENGADILAN PAJAK DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN DI INDONESIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Ismail Rumadan
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The People ◽  
Tax Court ◽  
Sense Of Justice

The existence of the tax court in Indonesia as a judicial institution that is specialy expected to play a role in resolving settlement of tax disputes for those seeking justice. However, its existence has not been in line with the justice system one roof in Indonesia as mandated by the 1945 Constitution. Tax court over a regime of taxation law, not a regime of law on Judicial Power. There is not an appeal or cassation resulting tax court decision does not reflect the lack of legal certainty and a sense of justice for the people seeking justice. These conditions lead to the control of the implementation of the Tax Court is very weak. Keywords: Tax Court, Justice System, Rule of Law, Justice.

scholarly journals Income Tax Disputes Involving Loss Years: Pitfalls, Foibles, and Possible Reforms

2019 ◽  
pp. 499-531
Author(s):  
Michael H. Lubetsky
Keyword(s):  
Income Tax ◽  
Timely Manner ◽  
Tax Court ◽  
Tax Loss

Tax disputes involving losses can be challenging to resolve owing to two longstanding principles, commonly known as "the nil assessment rule" and "the <i>New St James</i> principle." The nil assessment rule bars taxpayers from objecting to assessments that result in no tax being payable--including both loss years and profitable years where income is completely offset by carryovers. The <i>New St James</i> principle provides, essentially, that loss years or years with no tax payable never become statute-barred. Because the nil assessment rule and the <i>New St James</i> principle can prevent the resolution of disputes over tax loss balances in a timely manner, Parliament amended the Income Tax Act in 1977 so as to allow, in certain situations, for the issuance by the minister of national revenue of a notice of determination of losses (NODL) for a given taxation year. Once issued, a NODL can be objected to or appealed in basically the same manner as an assessment and, subject to any objection or appeal, becomes binding upon the minister and the taxpayer. However, the existence of a parallel but distinct system for resolving loss disputes leaves gaps that result in a range of procedural traps for taxpayers. Taxpayers caught in these traps can potentially end up losing their rights to object to or appeal disputed income adjustments, reviving statute-barred issues, or being required to pay arrears interest on extinguished tax debts. This article explores some of these traps, showing how they arise and what a taxpayer might do to avoid being caught by them. It also discusses whether the time has come to reform the nil assessment rule and/or the <i>New St James</i> principle so as to allow disputes involving losses to be resolved more readily by the Tax Court of Canada, and proposes several possible reforms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document