Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

Juridical Review of Legal Protection Against E-Commerce Consumers on The Marketplace Udi Juswanto; Suryanto Suryanto; Yusuf Gunawan
LEGAL BRIEF Vol. 11 No. 4 (2022): October: Law Science and Field
Publisher : IHSA Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (580.862 KB)

Abstract

This study aims to find out and analyze how Law No. 8 can provide legal protection for E-Commers consumers on the Marketplace and to find out and analyze how the legal protection for E-Commers consumers on the Marketplace in the future. The type of research used is normative legal research. So that it focuses on an inventory of positive law, legal principles and doctrines, legal findings in cases in concerto, legal systematics, levels of legal synchronization, legal comparisons, and legal history. This study uses the type of qualitative analysis, which is a study that aims to describe the nature of a particular individual, condition, symptom or group, or to determine the frequency of a symptom, describing the problems that occur related to research. The results show that (1) Legal protection for E-commerce consumers in e-commerce transaction activities on the marketplace is basically an electronic contract engagement activity carried out by two or more parties between business actors and consumers in buying and selling goods and/or services as well as in the form of payment transactions. So that in the process the agreement made is a standard agreement that has a tendency of great risk to consumers.
Merek Ditolak? (Barang dan/ Jasa Tidak Sejenis) Yusuf Gunawan
Jurnal Pendidikan dan Konseling (JPDK) Vol. 5 No. 1 (2023): Jurnal Pendidikan dan Konseling
Publisher : Universitas Pahlawan Tuanku Tambusai

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31004/jpdk.v5i1.11496

Abstract

Merek merupakan identitas suatu produk barang dan/ atau jasa yang mempunyai nilai komersial dan berharga. Mempunyai komersial karena menjadi identitas produk yang diperjual belikan dan berharga karena mempunyai nilai yang dapat dinilai sebagai asset suatu perusahaan, dapat mempunyai nilai jual dan dapat diletakkan sebagai jaminan. Di Indonesia, merek secara yuridis diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis (UU MIG). Perlindungan hak merek yang terdaftar secara formal (first to file) selain merek terkenal. Adapun salah satu alasan pendaftaran merek ditolak menurut UU MIG yang diubah dengan UU No 11 tentang Cipta kerja (UUCiptaker) disebutkan dalam pasal 20 butir e menyebutkan bahwa merek tersebut tidak memiliki daya pembeda sedangkan pada pasal 21 ayat 1 a,b dan c menyebutkan bahwa merek ditolak karena mempunyai persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya dengan merek terdaftar milik pihak lain atau dimohonkan lebih dahulu oleh pihak lain untuk barang dan/atau jasa sejenis dan merek ditolak karena mempunyai persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya dengan merek terkenal milik pihak lain untuk barang dan/atau jasa sejenis demikian juga untuk barang dan/ atau jasa tidak sejenis. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan metode yang digunakan didalam penulisan makalah ini adalah metode normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (The Statute Approach) artinya pendekatan yang dilakukan dengan menelah semua undang-undang dan regulasi yang bersangkut-paut sesuai hukum yang ditangani. Kesimpulan yang diperoleh adalah Indonesia telah menandatangani Perjanjian Paris dan TRIPs dimana konsep dan paradigma pengaturan persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya tentang merek dan merek terkenal yang berlaku saat ini di Indonesia dan konvensi Internasional untuk barang/ atau jasa sejenis dan tidak sejenis harus diberlakukan oleh semua negara anggota termasuk Indonesia dan politik hukum Indonesia tentang merek perlu diadakan perubahan baik dari segi subtansi dengan memasukkan untur-unsur penolakan adalah: a. status sebagai merek terkenal; b. mempunyai persamaan pada pokoknya atau keseluruhannya; c. dapat menyebabkan kesesatan dan/ atau kekeliruan; d. dapat menyebabkan kerugian; e. diperdagangkan oleh penggunaan merek tersebut.
ANALISA YURIDIS SENGKETA PAJAK PADA PENGADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA TERHADAP SURAT KETETAPAN PAJAK STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NO 606 K/TUN/2022 Maralus Samosir; Yusuf Gunawan
Jurnal Studi Akuntansi Pajak Keuangan Vol. 2 No. 1 (2024)
Publisher : Institut Teknologi dan Bisnis Kristen Bukit Pengharapan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61696/jusapak.v2i1.218

Abstract

This research aims to determine the mechanisms and procedures for resolving tax disputes in the judicial system in Indonesia, specifically knowing the mechanisms for resolving tax disputes and the characteristics of tax dispute resolution carried out by taxpayers regarding tax assessment letters (SKP) issued by the Directorate General of Taxes (DJP). The formulation of the problem in this research is: How are tax disputes in the State Administrative Court? How is the analysis of juridical considerations regarding the State Administrative Decision Number 606 K/TUN/2022? The research method used in this research is normative legal research, namely a legal research method which in principle carries out research on legal rules in legislation (Positive law), literature studies, jurisprudence and doctrine carried out qualitatively. The results of this research are that considering the subject matter of the dispute, the responsibilities of administrative officials, and the scope of the law, that tax disputes have almost the same characteristics as administrative disputes. The difference is, a tax dispute is not just about opposing a tax decision, but also calculating the amount of tax in dispute. The resolution requires a special court, for this reason the Financial Court was formed which is a specialty of the State Administrative Court. Often there is a gap in jurisdiction between the two courts, even though each court has its own absolute jurisdiction. The limits of the authority of the Tax Court and PTUN in matters of tax opinion can be seen, when it concerns the magnitude of SKP losses and procedural errors in disputed cases, the supervisory authority rests with the Tax Court. Court, whereas cases involving the legitimacy of power, alleged abuse of office, and unlawful acts, the PTUN has the right to examine them. Consideration of the Supreme Court judges through Decision Number: 606 K/TUN/2022 Whereas based on Article 1 number 5 of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court, the definition of a tax dispute is a dispute that arises in the field of taxation between the Taxpayer or Tax Insurer and the official who has the authority as a result of the issuance of a decision that can be submitted for an appeal or lawsuit to the Tax Court based on tax laws and regulations, including a lawsuit regarding the implementation of collection based on the Law on Tax Collection by Force Letter. Whereas Article 1 number 7 of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court regulates that a lawsuit is a legal remedy that can be taken by a taxpayer or tax bearer regarding the implementation of tax collection or against a decision that can be filed a lawsuit based on the applicable tax laws and regulations. That the legal remedy for Tax Collection Letters (STP) and Tax Underpayment Assessment Letters (SKPKB) whose issuance does not comply with the procedures or procedures stipulated in the provisions of tax laws and regulations is to file a lawsuit only with the Tax Court. Keywords: Tax Disputes, Tax Court, Administrative Court