<![CDATA[AbstractLaw enforcement practices in the field of taxation has not yet had a positive correlation between the examination of taxation and the increasing of state revenues from the taxpayer . The double standards applied by the Tax Directorate in addressing abuses of legislation in the field of taxation has often occured. Therefore, it is necessary cohesion between a tax assessment and an enforcementof law on the state revenue optimization. A Such efforts can be made through: firstly, it is necessary to drawn up the characteristics of the violations and irregularities a tax regulation. The perceptions differences between law enforcement officers typically associated classification of administrative violation , crime in the area of taxation , and corruption in the field of taxation. Thus the similarity mindset , understanding and commonality of action in following up on the alleged irregularities in the field of taxation are essentially needed , There is important to do as a first step.whether through administrative action or through the enforcement of criminal law. Secondly, the integration between the principal tax debt settlement and the criminal justice process. There will be often two different things and seems “face to face” during the criminal proceedings and the principal tax debt settlement. When a taxpayer is processed through the criminal justice mechanisms and sanctions as well as criminal fines , then at the same time officers issued a tax assessment as the basis of its tax debt collection . Whereas one of the basic elements in determining the losses in state revenues is actually the result of calculation of tax liabilities and tax audit As a result, the issuance of SKP conducted after the criminal justice process , which raises the number of “ tax debts hanging “. AbstrakPeraturan perundang-undangan dan berbagai praktik penegakan hukum di bidang perpajakan ternyata masih belum memiliki korelasi positif antara pemeriksaan di bidang perpajakan dengan peningkatan penerimaan negara dari wajib pajak. Standar ganda yang diterapkan Ditjen Pajak dalam menindaklanjuti pelanggaran peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang perpajakan seringkali terjadi. Oleh karena itu perlu diupayakan keterpaduan antara pemeriksaan pajak dan penegakan hukum di satu pihak dengan optimalisasi penerimaan negara. Upaya tersebut dapat dilakukan melalui pertama, diperlukan adanya pemetaan terhadap karakteristik pelanggaran dan penyimpangan di bidang perpajakan. Perbedaan persepsi antar aparat penegak hukum biasanya terkait klasifikasi pelanggaran administrasi, tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan, maupun korupsi di bidang perpajakan. Maka kesamaan pola pikir, pemahaman dan kesamaan tindakan dalam menindaklanjuti adanya dugaan penyimpangan di bidang perpajakan, apakah melalui tindakan administrasi ataukah melalui penegakan hukum pidana menjadi penting untuk dilakukan sebagai langkah awal. Kedua, adanya integrasi antara penyelesaian utang pokok pajak dengan proses peradilan pidana. Selama ini antara proses peradilan pidana dengan penyelesaian utang pokok pajak, merupakan dua hal yang terpisah dan terkadang berhadap-hadapan. Ketika seorang wajib pajak diproses melalui mekanisme peradilan pidana dan dikenakan sanksi pidana berikut denda, maka pada saat itu pula aparat Ditjen Pajak menerbitkan SKP sebagai dasar penagihan utang pajaknya. Padahal salah satu dasar dalam menentukan unsur kerugian pada pendapatan negara, sesungguhnya merupakan utang pajak hasil perhitungan dan pemeriksaan pajak. Akibatnya penerbitan SKP yang dilakukan setelah proses peradilan pidana, justru menimbulkan banyaknya “utang pajak menggantung”.]]>
