* Corresponding Author
LOSS (OF REVENUE) OF STATE WITHIN TAXATION CRIMES IN INDONESIA
https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.27136 Henry Dianto Pardamean Sinaga(1*)
(1) Awardee Beasiswa Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan, Directorate General of Taxes of Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
The difference of state’s tax loss amount between tax investigation, which has been completely declared by the Prosecutor, and judicial verdict can not be separated from the existence of the defendant’s right to propose Witnesses/Experts, and or the dualism between the administrative penalties and the state’s revenue loss. Due to the nature of tax and the ultimum remedium of tax investigation, the element (may) cause a losses (on income) of the state should be more legally certain as material offense, and must be explicitly regulated in Indonesian tax provisions which confirms the limitation of administrative penalties and tax criminal penalties.
Intisari
Masih timbulnya perbedaan jumlah kerugian pada pendapatan negara antara penyidikan pajak yang telah dinyatakan lengkap oleh Jaksa Penuntut dengan putusan peradilan tidak dapat terlepas dari adanya hak tersangka/terdakwa untuk mengajukan Saksi/Ahli yang dapat meringankannya, dan atau adanya dualisme pengaturan antara kerugian administrasi dengan kerugian (in revenue) Negara. Mengingat sifat alami pajak dan penyidikan pajak sebagai upaya akhir, maka unsur (dapat) menimbulkan kerugian (in revenue) negara adalah lebih mengandung kepastian hukum sebagai delik materiil, dan harus diatur secara eksplisit dalam ketentuan pidana pajak di Indonesia yang menegaskan batasan bahwa suatu perbuatan merupakan pelanggaran administrasi perpajakan atau merupakan tindak pidana perpajakan.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
A. Books
Abidin, A. Z. and Andi Hamzah, 2010, Pengantar dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia, Yarsif Watampone, Jakarta.
Directorate General of Taxation Republik Indonesia, 2015, Laporan Tahunan 2015, Directorate General of Taxation Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
Directorate General of Taxation Republik Indonesia, 2014, Laporan Tahunan 2014, Directorate General of Taxation Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
Erwin, Muhammad and Amrullah Arpan, 2008, Filsafat Hukum: Mencari Hakikat Hukum, Penerbit Universitas Sriwijaya,Palembang.
Karyono, 2013, Forensic Fraud, Penerbit Andi, Yogyakarta.
Hadjar , Abdul Ficar, et. al., 2014, Menghukum Pengemplang Pajak: Hasil Eksaminasi Publik atas Putusan Mahkamah Agung Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Pajak dengan Terdakwa Suwir Laut, The Indonesian Legal Resource Center dan Indonesian Corruption Watch, Jakarta.
Hiariej, Eddy O. S., 2014, Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana, Penerbit Cahaya Atma Pustaka, Yogyakarta.
Prasetyo, Teguh, 2010, Kriminalisasi dalam Hukum Pidana, Penerbit Nusa Media, Bandung.
Priantara, Diaz, 2013, Fraud Auditing and Investigation, Penerbit Mitra Wacana Media, Jakarta.
Riyanto, Astim, 2010, Filsafat Hukum, Penerbit Yapemdo, Bandung.
Schaffmeister, D., et al, 2007, Hukum Pidana, Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Tuanakotta, Theodorus M., 2007, Akuntansi Forensik dan Audit Investigatif, Lembaga Penerbit Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.
_____________________, 2013, Mendeteksi Manipulasi Laporan Keuangan, Penerbit Salemba Empat, Jakarta.
Zimbelaman, Mark F., et al., Translated by Novita Puspasari, et al., 2014, Akuntansi Forensik, Penerbit Salemba Empat, Jakarta
B. Journal ArticlesPramono, Widyo, “Penyamaan Persepsi Dan Kerjasama Dalam Pemeriksaan Di Bidang Perpajakan Untuk Mendukung Optimalisasi Penerimaan Negara”, Yustisia, Vol. 5, No. 1, January – April 2016.
Taylor, Paul W., “Justice and Utility”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. I, No. 3, March 1972.
C. InternetBeritasatu, “Terbukti Memeras PPNS Pajak Divonis Empat Setengah Tahun Penjara” www.beritasatu.com/hukum/148862-terbukti-memeras-ppns-pajak-divonis-empat-setengah-tahun-penjara.html, accessed on 5 July 2017.
National Legal Development Board of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, “Laporan Akhir Penyelarasan Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Tentang Ketentuan Umum Dan Tata Cara Perpajakan”, http://www.bphn.go.id/data/documents/Penyelarasan-NA-RUU-Ttg-Ketentuan-Umum-&-Tata-Cara-Perpajakan.PDF, accessed on 29 March 2017.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, “Putusan PN PEKANBARU Nomor 229/Pid.Sus/2014/PN. Pbr Tahun 2014” https://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/putusan/4e67ddd85f9ea66bdef51d16abe1dd52, accessed on 28 June 2017.
D. Regulations and Court DecissionsLaw No. 6 of 1983 regarding General Provisions and Procedure of Taxation as Has Been Amended Several Times Lastly by Law No. 16 of 2009 (KUP Law) (State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia of 2009 Number 62, Additional State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4999).
Law No. 31 of 1999 regarding Eradication of the Crime of Corruption (State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999 Number 140, Additional State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia Number 387).
Law No. 1 of 2004 regarding State Treasury (State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004 Number 5, Additional State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4355).
Law No. 15 of 2006 Regarding Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia of 2006 Number 85, Additional State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4654).
General Provisions of Indonesia Criminal Law.
General Provisions of Indonesia Civil Law.
Government Regulation (PP) No. 74 of 2011 regarding Procedure for the Implementation of Rights and Fulfillment of Tax Obligations (State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia of 2011 Number 162, Additional State Gazettes of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5268).
Constitutional Court Decision (MK) No. 003/PUU-IV/2006
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.27136
Article Metrics
Abstract views : 2600
| 
views : 3676
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Henry Dianto Pardamean Sinaga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
