PERAN UNDANG-UNDANG KETENTUAN UMUM DAN TATA CARA PERPAJAKAN (UU KUP) DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PAJAK DI PENGADILAN PAJAK

Harahap, Mursal (2026) PERAN UNDANG-UNDANG KETENTUAN UMUM DAN TATA CARA PERPAJAKAN (UU KUP) DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PAJAK DI PENGADILAN PAJAK. S1 thesis, Universitas Kristen Indonesia.

	Text (Hal_Judul_Daftar_Isi_Daftar_Tabel_Daftar_Gambar_Daftar_Singkatan_Daftar_Lampiran_Abstrak) HalJudulDaftarisiDaftartabelDaftarGambarDaftarSingkatanDaftarlampiranAbstrak.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (3MB)
	Text (BAB_I) BABI.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (772kB)
	Text (BAB_II) BABII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (801kB)
	Text (BAB_III) BABIII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (968kB)
	Text (BAB_IV) BABIV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)
	Text (BAB_V) BABV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (341kB)
	Text (DAFTAR_PUSTAKA) DAFTARPUSTAKA.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (571kB)

Abstract

ABSTRAK A. Nama : Mursal Harahap B. NIM : 2340058029 C. Bagian : Hukum Tata Negara D. Judul : Peran Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UU KUP) dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Pajak di Pengadilan Pajak. E. Halaman : 126 Halaman + Daftar Pustaka F. Kata Kunci : Sengketa Pajak, Pasal 26A ayat (4) UU KUP, Pembuktian, Keadilan Prosedural, Pengadilan Pajak. G. Ringkasan Isi : Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis peran strategis Pasal 26A ayat (4) Undang-Undang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan (UU KUP) dalam penyelesaian sengketa pajak di Pengadilan Pajak serta keterkaitannya dengan Pasal 107 UU Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (UU PTUN) dan Pasal 76 UU Pengadilan Pajak,. Latar belakang penelitian ini adalah adanya ketegangan normatif dan asimetri kekuasaan antara fiskus dan wajib pajak, di mana Pasal 26A ayat (4) UU KUP hadir sebagai instrumen pembatasan alat bukti guna menjamin keadilan procedural. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif-doktrinal dengan sifat deskriptif-analitis. Pendekatan penelitian mencakup pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach), pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach), dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Analisis dilakukan dengan menggunakan Teori Hukum Murni Hans Kelsen, Teori Sistem Hukum Lawrence M. Friedman, Teori Keadilan John Rawls, serta Teori Keadilan Pancasila. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pasal 26A ayat (4) UU KUP berperan sentral dalam membatasi fiskus agar hanya menggunakan bukti yang telah diajukan pada tahap pemeriksaan atau keberatan, sehingga mencegah praktik ex post justification di persidangan, Secara teoritis, norma ini menciptakan keseimbangan (fair equality of opportunity) dalam kondisi imperfect procedural justice, Secara fungsional, Pasal 26A ayat (4) UU KUP bersinergi dengan Pasal 76 UU Pengadilan Pajak yang memberikan kewenangan hakim untuk menggali kebenaran materiil, serta Pasal 107 UU PTUN yang menekankan legalitas tindakan administrative. Data empiris dalam sumber mengungkapkan bahwa 90-95% sengketa pajak adalah sengketa pembuktian, dengan tingkat kemenangan wajib pajak mencapai 46,53%, sementara fiskus hanya menang sekitar 30%, Hal ini mengindikasikan bahwa mekanisme pembatasan bukti efektif dalam melindungi hak wajib pajak dan mendorong profesionalisme fiskus dalam proses pemeriksaan. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa sinkronisasi ketiga norma tersebut membentuk sistem check and balances yang menjamin kepastian hukum dan keadilan substantif sesuai nilai-nilai Pancasila. H. Daftar Acuan : Buku 51, Dokumen dan Peraturan perundang- Undangan 7, Jurnal, Internet I. Dosen Pembimbing I : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hendri Jayadi, S.H., M.H. Dosen Pembimbing II : Asst. Prof. Pdt. Dr. Marudut P. Silitonga, S.Th., S.H., M.H."/"ABSTRACT A. Name : Mursal Harahap B. Student ID : 2340058029 C. Major : Constitutional Law D. Title : “The Role of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (UU KUP) in Resolving Tax Disputes in the Tax Court. E. Pages : 126 pages + Bibliography + Appendices F. Keywords  : Tax Disputes, Article 26A paragraph (4) of the KUP Law, Evidence, Procedural Justice, Tax Court. G. Summary : This article examines the strategic role of Article 26A paragraph (4) of Indonesia’s Law on General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) in the adjudication of tax disputes before the Tax Court, particularly in its normative interaction with Article 107 of the Administrative Court Law (UU PTUN) and Article 76 of the Tax Court Law. The study is motivated by persistent normative tension and structural power asymmetry between the tax authority and taxpayers, in which Article 26A paragraph (4) functions as a procedural safeguard through the limitation of admissible evidence. Employing a normative-doctrinal legal research method with a descriptive-analytical orientation, this study applies statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The analytical framework draws upon Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law, Lawrence M. Friedman’s Legal System Theory, John Rawls’ theory of justice, and the concept of Pancasila-based justice. The findings demonstrate that Article 26A paragraph (4) of the UU KUP plays a pivotal role in preventing ex post facto justification by restricting the tax authority to evidence previously submitted during the audit and objection stages. Normatively, this provision promotes fair equality of opportunity within an imperfect procedural justice framework. Functionally, it operates in synergy with Article 76 of the Tax Court Law, which empowers judges to ascertain material truth, and Article 107 of the UU PTUN, which reinforces the principle of administrative legality. Empirical data from secondary sources indicate that approximately 90–95% of tax disputes primarily concern evidentiary matters. Taxpayers prevail in 46.53% of cases, while the tax authority succeeds in approximately 30%, suggesting that evidentiary restrictions enhance procedural fairness, protect taxpayers’ rights, and incentivize greater institutional discipline within tax administration. This study concludes that the harmonization of these norms establishes a system of checks and balances that strengthens legal certainty and advances substantive justice in alignment with Pancasila values. H. References : Books 51, Document anf Laws and Regulations 7, Journal and Internet I. Thesis Adviser I : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hendri Jayadi, S.H., M.H. Thesis Adcisor II : Asst. Prof. Pdt. Dr. Marudut P. Silitonga, S.Th., S.H., M.H.

Actions (login required)

View Item