<![CDATA[Abstrak: Meningkatnya aktivitas ekonomi antar negara memberikan ruang bagi perusahaan untuk membentuk perusahaan terkendali yang berada di luar negeri (Controlled Foreign Corporations) sehingga menyebabkan naiknya risiko penggelapan pajak. OECD dan G20 merekomendasikan Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan agar negara-negara dapat mengadopsi peraturan yang ideal terkait CFC. Oleh karena itu, Indonesia merilis Peraturan Menteri Keuangan no. 93/PMK.03/2019, dimana Jerman juga mengadaptasi peraturan CFC ini melalui German Foreign Transaction Act 1972. Namun, Jerman dinilai lebih berhasil dalam melindungi basis pajk negaranya dalam ruang lingkup CFC. Maka, riset ini dilakukan untuk membandingkan antara peraturan CFC di Indonesia dengan Jerman serta OECD BEPS Action Plan dalam aspek control, kualifikasi pendapatan, serta keringanan beban pajak. Melalui penelitian yuridis-normatif dan pendekatan kualitatif, telah dikemukakan bahwa perbedaan utama tertera dalam lingkup pengendali tidak langsung, kewajiban keterbukaan pemegang saham, spesifikasi yurisdiksi pajak, dan metode keringanan pajak, yang selanjutnya akan diolah sebagai rekomendasi kebijakan untuk memperkuat regulasi CFC di Indonesia. Abstract: The rise of cross-border multinational companies allows the occurrence of Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC), which consequently gives rise to the risk of tax evasion. The OECD and G20 enacted the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan to recommend nations in adopting an ideal policy for CFC. In response, Indonesia promulgated Ministry of Finance Regulation No.93/PMK.03/2019, whereas Germany adopted the German Foreign Transaction Tax Act 1972. However, Germany was deemed more successful in maintaining the tax base of the nation from the conduct of CFC. Hence, this research was conducted to compare the CFC regulation in Indonesia and Germany as well as the OECD BEPS Action Plan, especially in pertaining to the aspect of control, income qualification, and tax relief. Through juridical-normative research and qualitative approach, it is found that the main differences are prevalent in the scope of indirect controller, mandatory disclosure, tax jurisdiction, and method of tax relief, which are incorporated as policy recommendations to further strengthen the CFC regulation in Indonesia]]>
Copyrights © 2020
