anti-avoidance rules di indonesia pasca amandemen uu pajak penghasilan
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #52 of 79 articles by views in Health Communication
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
Abstract
The fourth amendment to the Indonesian Income Tax Act (UU PPh) has inserted three new provisions encountering three newly-identified tax avoidance schemes. However, the previous regulations in respect of thin capitalization, CFC and interest stripping were not carefully be given attention and be made in conformity with their newest developments. As an illustration, the term “company” has never been defined in the Act. Instead, the Act introduces the same term in the conduit company rules. Another example involves the CFC rule which does not put additional provisions to define “control”. Another interesting development is the regulation of the International-hiring out of labor which instead of making it in conformity with the OECD MC, the rule empowers the country to increase the taxable income of an employee in respect of employment excercised abroad. This article attempts to demonstrate how the Indonesian anti-avoidance rules work out and prove how taxpayers may well, ironically, abuse those rules.
| Reference Key |
nugroho2012mimbaranti-avoidance
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Adrianto Dwi Nugroho |
| Journal | Health Communication |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.