Explore publications.

The Indonesian government is now seriously exploring in depth the proposed tax imposition for e-commerce. In this context, this paper will discuss the following issues: the first, if Indonesian government should impose the tax on e-commerce; the second, how much the potential tax revenue from e-commerce is; and the third, how Indonesian fiscal policy perspective views e-commerce taxation. The study in this paper adopts a descriptive analytical research method. The study concludes several points. Indonesia should tax its e-commerce. The total potential tax revenue on e-commerce from VAT and income tax in 2018 ranges from almost Rp11.75 trillion to Rp16.64 trillion, with VAT dominates the contribution up to more than 90% of the total tax revenue. By not levying the tax in the year means Indonesian government will lose a partial or the most of tax revenue. The revenue loss is potentially getting bigger in the coming years if the government still fails to collect the tax. E-commerce taxation should not be strictly enforced in the beginning, yet more is emphasized on socialization and education actions. It is also intended to help the online platform to be compliant. Tax policy in e-commerce can be used for the purpose of regulating the economy, such as to control excessive online import purchasing.

Based on the sayings of “Finance is the mother of civil affairs” and “Tax revenue is the context of national economy”, a healthy tax system based on the alternating utilization of central and local tax systems is essential for achieving the administration by law and tax balance. In light of this, the Ministry of Finance has proposed the improvement project of “Income Tax on the Consolidated Income from House and Land Transactions”. The third reading of “Amendment of Tax Act of Consolidated House and Land Taxation System” was passed by the Legislative Yuan on June 5th, 2015, and it was promulgated on January 1st, 2016. The purpose of this study is to investigate the content of “Income Tax on the Consolidated Income from House and Land Transactions”, including: 1. Is separate taxation a proper move? 2. Is the sunrise term appropriate? 3. Is it necessary to have the “anti-misuse” term? 4. The tax exemption of NT$ 4 million? 5. The effectiveness of tax revenue after suspension of luxury tax (also known as special sales tax) and the adoption of income tax on consolidate income from house and land? 6. Is it feasible for allocate tax revenue for expenditures of residential policy and long-term care? 7. Is the income tax on consolidated income from house and land in compliance with the principle of proportionality? This study is based on in-depth interview method along with literature review method for data collection and analysis. The results of this study indicate that: a separate taxation system is not appropriate in terms of income redistribution; the opposing party believes that sunrise terms are not appropriate; in theory the anti-misuse term - non-voluntary factors tax rate is not necessary; all interviewees agreed on the tax exemption of NT$ 4 million ; and the income tax on consolidated income from house and land is not in compliance with the principle of proportionality from the perspective of tax revenue.