Bankruptcy is a decision issued by the Court that resulted in a general confiscation of all the wealth owned and the wealth that will be owned by the debtor in the future. The State has the preference right to tax debt on the property of the Taxpayer. This means that the position of the state as a preferent creditor who is declared to have prior rights over the property of the Taxpayer to be auctioned in public. The state's preference by taxpayer repayment is in fact not as easy as one might imagine, there are some problems. The purpose of article writing is to know the position of the State as a preferent creditor for the tax debt of the taxpayer declared bankrupt and know the obstacles of the State as a preferent creditor to the repayment of tax debt on taxpayers declared bankrupt. Provisions on the State's prior rights include the principal taxes, administrative sanctions in the form of interest, penalties, increases, and tax collection fees. The weakness in the regulation creates an impediment to the application of the State as a preferential creditor who has the preference right, namely the formulation of the preference right itself that is unclear about the notion of the state's position as the preferent creditor, in addition to the overlapping regulation of the preference right (preferent creditor) The Civil Code, the Law on General Taxation and Bankruptcy Laws and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations which not only the State as the Preference rights holder's creditors.
The state has a preference right (priority) to collect tax debts on goods which belong to the taxpayer (debtor), meaning that the state's position as a preferred creditor is declared to have advance rights to the taxpayer's property to be auctioned in public. Preference rights by the State for paying off tax debts are in fact not as easy as imagined, there are disharmony in several laws and regulations, namely between the Taxation, Bankruptcy and Labor Laws and the Constitutional Court Verdict No.67/PUU-IX /2013 and other problems that affect the State's pre-emptive rights over paying tax debts. The objective of this study is to determine the impact of disharmony of Legal Regulations relating to Debt Repayment in Bankruptcy Against the State's Standing on Preferential Rights of Tax Debt. Based on research, the position of laborers' wages in Constitutional Court Decision No. 67/PUU-XI /2013 contrary to the provisions of the KPKPU Code which regulates labor wages as a bill of general preferred creditors and based on the principle of lex posteriori derogat legi priori, the position of laborers' wages in bankruptcy is based on the provisions of the KPKPU Code which overrides the provisions of Code No. 13 of 2013. Second, the consideration of the Constitutional Court on Verdict No. 67/PUU-XI/2013, is not in same direction with the provisions of the KPKPU Code which regulates that the wages of workers owed both before and after the bankruptcy was declared is a bankruptcy debt.
The purpose of this article is to find out the implementation and issues of confidentiality principle in Act No. 11 of 2016 concerning Tax Amnesty and to determine the effect of the principle of confidentiality of data and information on taxpayers in Act No 11 of 2016 concerning Tax Amnesty for law enforcement in Indonesia. The principle of confidentiality in Tax Amnesty provides a potential moral hazard. A moral hazard occurs because of the opportunities that enable these actions to materialize. Opportunities for Fiscus and Taxpayers to meet in person. This has the potential to cause a gray area between the Taxpayer and the Fiscus which can cause a moral hazard to the Taxpayer. The authority of the Fiscus is prone to be misused so that it can lead to several criminal actions that can be carried out, namely embezzlement or corruption that can harm the country's finances. When the crime occurs at a Tax Amnesty Taxpayer, it will be difficult to enforce the law because the data and information sourced from the Statement and the attachments that are administered cannot be used as a basis for investigation, investigation, and/or criminal prosecution of the Taxpayer cannot be used as a basic investigation, investigation and/or criminal prosecution of taxpayers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.