Refinement of Taxpayer Legal Subject provisions in the New Criminal Code against the Offence of Corporate Tax Avoidance in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25041/corruptio.v4i2.3128Abstract
Law No. 16 of 2009 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) focuses on corporate criminal liability and criminal sanctions related to criminal offenses in the field of taxation. This stems from criminal responsibility to corporations as a prerequisite for corporate punishment. Criminal acts in the field of taxation are regulated in the KUP Law in terms of legal subjects covered by the KUP Law and criminal sanctions in the event of a violation of the criminal act, but there are inconsistencies in criminal liability for corporations and criminal sanctions regulated in Articles 38, 39, and 39A UU KUP, thus creating uncertainty in law enforcement. In addition, corporate law enforcement has no basis for calculating the conversion of substitute imprisonment if the defendant is unable to fulfill the fine as stipulated in the decision. The research method used is normative juridical which refers to laws and regulations regarding taxation accompanied by literature studies in the form of books, journals, and others. Data analysis was carried out through a qualitative descriptive approach to describe legal phenomena that occur in order to find solutions to problems through a specific conclusion. The results of the study show that the formulation of offenses in the KUP Law is actually inconsistent with the theories of criminal responsibility in the context of criminal law, even though Articles 38, 39, 39A and 43 are intended to regulate criminal provisions in the field of taxation. The problems of the judge's decision above can be resolved when in the future the New Criminal Code is implemented, which substantially explains in detail legal subjects in classification by using cumulative punishment. seen from the articles that have corporate elements in Articles 45-50 Criminal code.
Keywords:
Corporation, Criminal, TaxReferences
Alhakim, Abdurrakhman, and Eko Soponyono. “Kebijakan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Terhadap Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia 1, no. 3 (2019): 322–336.
Arief, Barda Nawawi. Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Prenada Media, 2016.
Farouq, Muhammad. Hukum Pajak Di Indonesia. Jakarta: Prenada Media, 2018.
Hamzah, Andi. Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2017.
Hidayat, Sarief. “Pemidanaan Korporasi Terkait Transfer Pricing Di Bidang Perpajakan.” Rechtidee 14, no. 1 (2019): 84–107.
Juita, Subaidah Ratna, Amri Panahatan Sihotang, and Supriyadi Supriyadi. “Penerapan Prinsip Individualisasi Pidana Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Perpajakan.” Jurnal Ius Constituendum 5, no. 2 (2020): 271–285.
Lestari, Indah. “Aspek Hukum Pidana Dalam Tindak Pidana Perpajakan.” Law Public 1, no. 1 (2019): 5.
Ohoiwirin, Valentino, and Ahmad Sholikhin Ruslie. “Penerapan Sanksi Pidana Terhadap Wajib Pajak Yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Perpajakan.” Bureaucracy Journal: Indonesia Journal of Law and Social-Political Governance 2, no. 2 (2022): 679–692.
Pardede, Marulak. “Aspek Hukum Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Oleh Korporasi Dalam Bidang Perpajakan.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 20, no. 3 (2020): 335–362.
Putra, I Made Walesa, Marcus Priyo Gunarto, and Dahliana Hasan. “Penentuan Kesalahan Korporasi Pada Tindak Pidana Perpajakan (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat No.: 334/Pid. Sus/2020/PN Jkt. Brt).” Media Iuris 5, no. 2 (2022).
Ramadhani, Kyagus, I Gede Widhiana, and Fiska Maulidian Nugroho. “Analisis Pertimbangan Hakim Dalam Tindak Pidana Pajak (Studi Putusan No. 3839/Pid. Sus/2020/PN Mdn).” Jurnal Anti Korupsi 12, no. 1 (2022): 21–37.
Rohi, Glenn Merciano Eben, I Nyoman Gede Sugiartha, and Ni Made Puspasutari Ujianti. “Penerapan Hukum Pidana Pada Korporasi Yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Perpajakan.” Jurnal Analogi Hukum 4, no. 3 (2022): 226–231.
Romy, Muhammad, Afrizal Nilwan, and Devira Andriani. “Pertanggungjawaban Wajib Pajak Selaku Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pajak Menurut Hukum Positif Indonesia.” Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research 3, no. 2 (2023): 2666–2680.
Rosidah, Nikmah. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Pustaka Magister. Semarang, 2011.
Rusito, Rusito, and Kaboel Suwardi. “Pertanggungjawaban Tindak Pidana Korporasi Dalam Bidang Perpajakan.” Cakrawala Hukum: Majalah Ilmiah Fakultas Hukum Universitas Wijayakusuma 23, no. 1 (2021): 25–31.
Sofian, Ahmad, and Batara Mulia Hasibuan. “Pengaturan Dan Praktek Praperadilan Tindak Pidana Pajak Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 50, no. 3 (2021): 701–718.
Sonata, Depri Liber. “Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Empiris: Karakteristik Khas Dari Metode Meneliti Hukum.” Fiat Justitia:Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 8, no. 1 (2015).
Tomalili, Rahmanuddin. Hukum Pidana. Sleman: Deepublish, 2019.
Usman. “Analisis Perkembangan Teori Hukum Pidana.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (2014): 1–8.
Virginia, Erja Fitria, and Eko Soponyono. “Pembaharuan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Dalam Upaya Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Perpajakan.” Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia 3, no. 3 (2021): 299–311.
Wibowo, Tri. “Efektivitas Sanksi Pidana Pajak Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 Tentang Ketentuan Umum Dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (Studi Di Pengadilan Pajak Jakarta).” Jurnal Dinamika Hukum 9, no. 3 (2009): 243–250.
Zaidan, M Ali. Menuju Pembaruan Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2022.
Downloads
Total Abstract Views: 22 |
Total Downloads: 32
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2023 by the Auhtor(s) Published by Development Centre Research of Law and Scientific Publication on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
