TAX CHALLENGES OF DIGITAL ECONOMY IN INDONESIA

<p>E-commerce transactions emerged as a consequences of the new virtual business model that is used by some multinational entities expanding their business operations abroad in the international landscape. This study aims to explore ecommerce taxation in Indonesia including some factors like understandings and tax payer’s opinion of e-commerce taxation and current rule and tax mechanism of ecommerce which are supporting the implementation of e-commerce taxation. Factors studied related to taxation of e-commerce, including mechanism, monitoring system, and e-commerce transaction. Interviews were conducted from the side of fiscus (Directorate General of Taxation) and taxpayers in e-commerce industry. Data collection was used semi-structured interview, observation, and documentation. Data analysis of this research was descriptive method. The result of this study proves that taxation in e-commerce industry has not been implemented in a good manner. Socialization to e-commerce taxpayers should be conducted in more structured and comprehensive ways. Difficulties in the detection of e-commerce transactions bring its own problems, this is the biggest challenges in e-commerce transactions, namely the difficulty of the government to establish a clear and fair e-commerce tax rules. Recent government rule in November 2019 which accommodate economic substance from Unified Approach of OECD gives refreshment to those difficulties.</p>

European prosecution between cooperation and integration: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the rule of law

The article will examine the challenges that the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office poses for the rule of law – a question which has been underexplored in the policy and academic debate on the establishment of the EPPO, which focused largely on questions of structure and powers of the EPPO and the battle between intergovernmental and supranational visions of European prosecution. The implications of the finally adopted legal framework on the EPPO on the rule of law will be analysed primarily from the perspective of the rule of law as related to EPPO investigations and prosecutions and their consequences for affected individuals – in terms of legal certainty and foreseeability, protection from executive arbitrariness, effective judicial protection and defence rights. The article will undertake a rule of law audit of the EPPO by focusing on three key elements of its legal architecture – the competence of the EPPO, applicable law and judicial review – and the interaction between EU and national levels of investigation and prosecution that the EPPO Regulation envisages. The analysis will aim to cast light on the current rule of law deficit in a hybrid system of European prosecution located somewhere between co-operation and integration.

Suspension of EU Funds Paid to Member States Breaching the Rule of Law: Is the Commission’s Proposal Legal?

The existing scale of violations of the rule of law by some Member States, including capturing judicial independence by their governments, is a relatively new phenomenon for the EU; the one for which the EU based on the EU common values (Article 2 TEU) originally was not prepared to effectively deal with. The EU reacts to current rule of law crisis by using different legal methods and instruments: it inter alia applies existing procedures (Article 7 TEU procedure and with more success general infringement procedure under Articles 258-260 TFEU) and struggles to develop new ones. This contribution is focused on the new EU legislative initiative of connecting in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021–2027 transfers of EU funds to Member States with their observance of the rule of law. Or to put it differently, this legislative initiatives would authorize the EU institutions to suspend regular transfers of EU funds to Member States that systematically breach the rule of law.

On the issue of evidence admissibility in civil proceedings

We investigate the procuring evidence in civil proceedings, we come to the conclusion that the court in the procuring evidence is the determining subject. This conclusion follows from the content of the rules of the court’s activity to determine the subject of evidence. By determining the subject of evidence, the court thereby determines and organizes the activities of the persons participating in the case, to prove the circumstances to which it indicated in the subject of evidence, regardless of the persons’ opinion par-ticipating in the case regarding the circumstances that they asked to be in-cluded in the subject of evidence, but the court did not. The decisive role of the court in the procuring evidence is also confirmed by the legislator’s right to apply the rules of evidence admissibility presented by the persons participating in the case for examination in the court session, as well as the right to offer the persons participating in the case to submit additional evidence. We conclude that the rules applied by the court to determine the evidence admissibility represent a specific set. This set includes, in addition to the general rule for determining the evidence admissibility, the rule according to which the evidence admissibility is established by determining their relevance and sufficiency to the circumstances of the subject of evidence. The set also includes rules for determining the procedural form of the evidence presented, including the rules for obtaining them. We believe that the legislator should exclude the current rule on the violations recognition of the procedural form of obtaining evidence as formal, as not complying with the requirements of the legality principle.

Rule-making Regimes in the Modern State

This chapter contrasts rule-making regimes in the UK and the US with the aim of isolating a set of principles that explain the differences in their respective regimes, suggesting a basic typology for further comparative analysis. It first charts the development of the current rule-making regimes in the UK and US by addressing the constitutional status of rule-making, the drafting of regulations, processes for engaging the public in rule-making, legislative scrutiny, judicial scrutiny, and the interpretation of regulations. The chapter then argues that the best explanation relies on structural features of these legal systems. The consolidation of power in the UK makes UK secondary legislation issued by those ministers more a convenience than threat to Parliament or constitutional principles. In the US, deliberation, participatory processes, technical expertise, and heightened judicial scrutiny must substitute for the direct political accountability of rule-makers in the UK.

Rules warp feature encoding in decision-making circuits

We have the capacity to follow arbitrary stimulus–response rules, meaning simple policies that guide our behavior. Rule identity is broadly encoded across decision-making circuits, but there are less data on how rules shape the computations that lead to choices. One idea is that rules could simplify these computations. When we follow a rule, there is no need to encode or compute information that is irrelevant to the current rule, which could reduce the metabolic or energetic demands of decision-making. However, it is not clear if the brain can actually take advantage of this computational simplicity. To test this idea, we recorded from neurons in 3 regions linked to decision-making, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), ventral striatum (VS), and dorsal striatum (DS), while macaques performed a rule-based decision-making task. Rule-based decisions were identified via modeling rules as the latent causes of decisions. This left us with a set of physically identical choices that maximized reward and information, but could not be explained by simple stimulus–response rules. Contrasting rule-based choices with these residual choices revealed that following rules (1) decreased the energetic cost of decision-making; and (2) expanded rule-relevant coding dimensions and compressed rule-irrelevant ones. Together, these results suggest that we use rules, in part, because they reduce the costs of decision-making through a distributed representational warping in decision-making circuits.

A crítica da racionalidade ambiental à gestão urbana: a ausência da democracia participativa na política urbana como causa de inefetividade do desenvolvimento socioespacial na cidade de Patos - Estado da Paraíba

Participatory democratic management is one of the guidelines of urban policy championed by the Paraíba’s City Statute, but it manifests itself abstractly, primarily in administrative procedures, such as reports and bills – and more, infamously, in the case of Patos, located in Paraíba, Brazil. This study utilizes literature review with documentary research as a means for collecting data in order to question the factors that hinder the effective urban management of Patos, a municipality in the state of Paraíba. These documents are analyzed from the perspective of environmental rationality in order to deconstruct the power strategies of the scientific model of urban management as a way to interlock the sciences – a dialogue of knowledge and an intersection of the theoretical and instrumental order that values marginalized communities in the urban planning of cities. This paper argues that there is an ineffectiveness in the application of instruments of democratic participation in the city. This paper contends that the current rule of city governance does not implement participatory democratic management in the concrete sense. Thus, this research seeks to highlight that the absence of participatory democratic management, in terms of environmental rationality, is the main cause of the urban and social non-development of municipalities in Paraíba.

Belief in the Round Table conspiracy and political division in Poland

The functions of the conspiracy theory surrounding the ’89 Round Table in present-day political life are discussed. In the online research conducted in 2018 on a representative sample of Polish citizens, we found that attitudes towards the Round Table are an important marker of the fundamental political division in Poland. Those who supported the current rule of PiS (with a nationalistic-authoritarian orientation) agreed with the ’89 Round Table conspiracy theory, whereas those who supported the liberal opposition against PiS rejected the ’89 Round Table conspiracy theory. Moreover, believers in the Round Table conspiracy appeared to trust politicians and justify the system to a higher degree than those who rejected this conspiracy theory. We also found that endorsement of the conspiracy theory of the ’89 Round Table was significantly associated with the stability of voting preferences. Among those who voted for PiS, conspiracy theory believers formed a stable electorate, whereas among those who voted for parties with a liberal orientation, theory believers were likely to change their voting preferences. Thus, belief in the discussed conspiracy is not only a part of some ideological landscape but also has direct behavioral consequences. The social-psychological reasons for the growing popularity of the ’89 Round Table conspiracy theory are discussed.

People, Territory, Plebiscite: The Main Features—Objections and Answers

This chapter discusses three main aspects of the new rule: people, territory, and plebiscite. It also considers some objections to the new rule and its effects—including the possibility that it would make things worse. The chapter then answers those objections and provides a theoretical justification for the basic intuition that democratic decision-making by local majorities is a positive good. An important theme will emerge: In many respects, the new rule is flawed—in the same ways the current rule is. And in other respects, this flawed new rule offers something more in keeping with people's better natures. The new rule is principally designed to be used before a crisis; it provides a pathway for peaceful change so that crisis need not come.

The Boxes We Live in, the Beliefs We Have

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the proposed new right to secession. In this new right to secession, groups of people may form a new state by holding a referendum on part of an existing state's territory. If the group wins the vote, the existing state must negotiate independence in good faith. The group's members do not need to share ethnicity, language, or culture; they just have to live in the same place. One might think this is a terrible idea—a formula for chaos, instability, and violence—and one can already think of many objections. Surely the current rule—a legal and political system of states with fixed borders—is a much safer and better way to organize the planet and the people living on it. This book considers why this intuition about fixed borders—which is the conventional wisdom and the commonest sense, even though borders have only been fixed since 1945—may well be wrong, why the objections to secession prove less obvious than they seem, and why it is actually very hard to be so sure that the rule people have now does what people think it does. The chapter then looks at the international order established at the end of the Second World War, which has confined questions about the shape of states—and changes to their shape—to a very limited space.