LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR TAX CRIMES WITH FICTITIOUS TAX INVOICES
Main
Edwin Sulasdjono Subroto*
Dudik Djaja Sidarta
Noenik Soekorini
This research aimed to examine the legal implications of tax fraud involving fictitious tax invoices by businesses and to examine the factors that judges take into account when imposing criminal penalties on those who use fictitious tax invoices in cases such as Decision Number523/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Cikarang, Decision Number 1227/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Jkt.Utr, and Decision Number 926/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Jkt.Utr. This study pertains to normative legal research, utilizing the statute approach and conceptual approach. Primary legal resources for this research consist of Law No. 7 of 2021 and Law No. 28 of 2007, while Secondary Legal Materials refer to data from media and literature sources. Collection of legal research materials through library research with legal material analysis techniques with descriptive analysis. The study findings demonstrate that companies engaging in tax fraud through fake tax invoices may face criminal charges under Article 39A of Law No. 7 of 2021. The penalties could range from a minimum of 2 years in prison to a maximum of 6 years, as well as fines equal to at least double the tax amount listed on the fraudulent invoices. These penalties apply to cases where there is evidence of tax evasion, tax collection, deductions, or payments being manipulated. Then the Judge's Consideration in Imposing Criminal Sanctions on Perpetrators of the Criminal Act of Using Fictitious Tax Invoices by Corporations in the Decision is in accordance with Article 39A of Law No. 7 of 2021.
Althaf, F., & Ida, K. J. (2020). Kajian Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perpajakan Yang Berkaitan Dengan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Bidang Hukum Pidana, 4(3), 530–537.
Apriandi, R., & Handoyo, P. (2022). Mispersepsi Pemidanaan Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi Atas Penggunaan Faktur Pajak Fiktif Oleh Direksi. Jurnal USM Law Review 5, No. 2 : 633–46.
Damayanti, N., Ningsih, P. A. S., & Ramadhan, A. E. (2022). Penegakan Hukum dalam Tindak Pidana Perpajakan terhadap Faktur Pajak Tidak Sah yang Dilakukan oleh PT. DC. Jurnal Lex Suprema, 4(I), 947–961.
Kusumo, B. A. (2018). Rekonstruksi Sanksi Pidana Di Bidang Perpajakan Yang Berbasis Nilai Keadilan. Synopsis Disertasi PDIH UNISSULA Semarang.
Kusumo, B. A., Siti, M., & Nur, R. Y. (2022). Rethinking Criminal Law Policies in Taxation to Overcome Tax Violations. Bestuur, 10(2), 159–182.
Mardiasmo. (2011). Perpajakan-Edisi Revisi. Andi.
Marzuki, P. M. (2020). Penelitian Hukum. Prenada Media Goup.
Nurmantu, S. (2017). Pengantar Perpajakan. Edisi 3. Jakarta: Granit.
Reksodiputro, M. (2016). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi dalam Tindak Pidana Korporasi. Semarang: FH-UNDIP, Hlm. 9.
Rohi, G. M. E., Sugiartha, N., & Ujianti, N. M. P. (2022). Penerapan Hukum Pidana Pada Korporasi yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Perpajakan. Jurnal Analogi Hukum, 4(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22225/ah.4.3.2022.226-231
Rosdiana, H., Tambunan, M. R. U. D., & Hifni, I. (2020). Penyempurnaan Hukum Formal Perpajakan Terkait Tata Cara Perpajakan. Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 22(2), 215–240. https://doi.org/10.24815/kanun.v22i2.13441
Rossulliati, D., Ucuk, Y., & Prawesthi, W. (2023). Criminal Liability of Notary in Criminal Act Committed By Notary Signing Agent. Journal of Court and Justice, 2, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.56943/jcj.v2i1.258
Sakidjo, A. (1990). Hukum Pidana. Ghalia Indonesia.
Sutedi, A. (2012). “Good Corporate Governance.” Sinar Grafika.
Suyanto. (2018). Pengantar Hukum Pidana. Sleman: Deepublish.
Takdir. (2013). Mengenal Hukum Pidana. Laskar Perubahan.
Triyono, S. A., Borman, M. S., Sidarta, D. D., & Handayati, N. (2024). Tinjauan Yuridis Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Konsumen Atas Garansi Produk Elektronik Dalam Undang-Undang. COURT REVIEW: Jurnal Penelitian Hukum, 4(1), 1–10.
Waluyo. (2009). Akuntansi Pajak. Salemba Empat.
Wirawan, B. I., & Richard, B. (2020). Hukum Pajak Teori, Analisis Dan Perkembangannya. Salemba Empat.
Wirawan, I., & Burton, R. (2013). Hukum Pajak Edisi 5. Salemba Empat, Jakarta.
