Explore the evidence.
Understand the reach.

Tax Dispute Settlement in the Tax Court has not provided a sense of justice and legal certainty and is only through litigation that is win-lose (win-lose). Settlement of tax disputes through litigation is less useful because the process is long and lengthy, besides that tax disputes continue to increase. The existing tax dispute resolution methods do not reflect the dispute resolution process that is simple, fast, low cost, and does not provide a sense of justice and legal certainty. Alternative tax dispute resolution is through a mediation process, but in this process there is no norm that regulates it. The purpose of this study is to find out how the mediation arrangement for tax dispute settlement in the Tax Court should be in the future. The research method used is a normative legal research method with a statutory approach, a historical approach, a concept approach and a comparative approach. The legal materials used consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials with the technique of collecting legal materials, namely through library research. The technique of analyzing legal materials is carried out by qualitative juridical methods. The results of the study indicate that the settlement of tax disputes through mediation can be regulated in the Tax Court Law by examining the Ordinary Procedure prior to the examination of the subject matter of the dispute, and mediation can be carried out for certain types of tax disputes, so as to achieve a simple, fast and low-cost dispute resolution for the taxpayers. disputing parties, and can reduce the number of disputes that must be examined and decided by the Tax Court.

Corruption is a crime that is difficult to eradicate because the perpetrators of corruption usually have a strong economic and political position so that corruption is classified as a white-collar crime, crimes as business, economic crimes, official crime, and abuse of power. The purpose of this research is to know the urgency of providing legal protection for witnesses to perpetrators who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation of Corruption Crimes. This research is normative legal research using the statute approach, philosophical approach, and case approach. The results can be explained that the urgency of providing legal protection for perpetrators of witnesses who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation of Corruption Crimes because Justice Collaborator is the main actor who can help uncover a crime because it has the potential to have evidence to drag the main perpetrator and other suspects in. Third, the future arrangements for perpetrator witnesses who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement still cannot be used as a strong legal basis regarding the right of commutation of sentence for Justice Collaborators in criminal justice by law enforcement officers and many have weaknesses, especially in terms of commutation of sentences for Justice Collaborators for their testimonies in assisting law enforcement officers but are only used as considerations by judges without any binding power that obliges judges to provide leniency.

Business is a risk. There is no guarantee the business is run By the board of Directors who will always bring profit. One day profit, no profit, and another time can lose. When business decisions are taken by the board of Directors losses especially in significant amounts can be ascertained will happen nervousness on the board of Directors of the Company. State-Owned Enterprises established for business purposes in the full operation of risk. Law No. 19 of 2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises does not regulate the protection of the Board of Directors of the Company, meanwhile, Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies regulation of the protection of the Board of Directors of its implementation gives rise to multi-interpretation. Business decisions made by the Board of Directors of the Company in accordance with the principles of Business Judgement Rule are business risk, should get legal protection. The purpose of this research is to find out the weaknesses of this legal protection. This research includes normative legal research with a statutory approach with The analysis technique in this research is investigation strategy. The results show that there is no legal certainty regarding business decisions taken by Directors who experience losses in business transactions so that the Government / DPR must amend the BUMN Law by adding articles on the legal protection of the Directors of Persero.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Legis Ratio in the regulation of Ministerial Regulations in Article 8 of Law 12 of 2011 concerning Formation of Regulations and Regulations as amended by Law 15 of 2019 concerning Amendments to Law 12 of 2011 concerning Formation of Regulations. This research is normative legal research with a philosophical approach, conceptual approach, comparative law, and historical approach. The legal materials used are primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. basic norms and laws and regulations, while secondary sources include new and current scientific knowledge which includes books, research reports, journals, magazines Tertiary sources namely black law dictionary, abstracts and other tertiary sources Analysis of legal material is carried out with descriptive perspective. The results showed that the regulation of Ministerial Regulations departs from the desire to re-regulate clearly the existence of Ministerial Regulations previously stated in the Explanation of Law 10 of 2004 concerning Formation of Legislation so that the existence of Ministerial Regulations has stronger legal legitimacy in the legislation system Indonesia. The Ministerial Regulation provides the legal basis for the Minister to form laws and regulations in their respective fields as an assistant to the President in carrying out governmental power.

The port is a gateway to enter a region or country and as a liaison infrastructure between regions, between islands, and even between countries. One of the important factors in the port is the shipping lane. The shipping lane is used for the trajectory of ships that will enter the port pool. The Port Business Entity has the obligation to carry out maintenance of shipping lanes and port pools in the form of dredging, so that ship traffic flows and port pools can be maintained properly. However, there are obstacles to carrying out dredging, namely regulations related to the obligation of business actors to have at least one dredger unit to obtain a dredging and reclamation business permit. In addition, regarding funding from the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN), in particular the dredging of shipping lanes and port pools, the central government no longer allocates dredging funds. By using normative legal research, it is known that legal reconstruction in shipping lanes and port pools by port business entities (BUP) will be carried out in the future to realize the discourse on the transformation of port business entities. In addition, it is necessary to improve Law Number 17 of 2008 concerning Shipping; it is necessary to improve port regulations.

The port is a gateway to enter a region or country and as a liaison infrastructure between regions, between islands, and even between countries. One of the important factors in the port is the shipping lane. The shipping lane is used for the trajectory of ships that will enter the port pool. The Port Business Entity has the obligation to carry out maintenance of shipping lanes and port pools in the form of dredging, so that ship traffic flows and port pools can be maintained properly. However, there are obstacles to carrying out dredging, namely regulations related to the obligation of business actors to have at least one dredger unit to obtain a dredging and reclamation business permit. In addition, regarding funding from the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN), in particular the dredging of shipping lanes and port pools, the central government no longer allocates dredging funds. By using normative legal research, it is known that legal reconstruction in shipping lanes and port pools by port business entities (BUP) will be carried out in the future to realize the discourse on the transformation of port business entities. In addition, it is necessary to improve Law Number 17 of 2008 concerning Shipping; it is necessary to improve port regulations.

Tax Dispute Settlement in the Tax Court has not provided a sense of justice and legal certainty and is only through litigation that is win-lose (win-lose). Settlement of tax disputes through litigation is less useful because the process is long and lengthy, besides that tax disputes continue to increase. The existing tax dispute resolution methods do not reflect the dispute resolution process that is simple, fast, low cost, and does not provide a sense of justice and legal certainty. Alternative tax dispute resolution is through a mediation process, but in this process there is no norm that regulates it. The purpose of this study is to find out how the mediation arrangement for tax dispute settlement in the Tax Court should be in the future. The research method used is a normative legal research method with a statutory approach, a historical approach, a concept approach and a comparative approach. The legal materials used consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials with the technique of collecting legal materials, namely through library research. The technique of analyzing legal materials is carried out by qualitative juridical methods. The results of the study indicate that the settlement of tax disputes through mediation can be regulated in the Tax Court Law by examining the Ordinary Procedure prior to the examination of the subject matter of the dispute, and mediation can be carried out for certain types of tax disputes, so as to achieve a simple, fast and low-cost dispute resolution for the taxpayers. disputing parties, and can reduce the number of disputes that must be examined and decided by the Tax Court.

The legal vacuum regarding Passive Subjective Novation causes legal uncertainty and creates problems because there are no clear references in terms of understanding, implementing regulations, and standard operating procedures. The purpose of this research is to find out the right arrangement related to Passive Subjective Novation so that it can provide legal certainty and protection. This research is normative juridical research using an analytical approach and a conceptual approach as well as analysis techniques of grammatical interpretation, systematic interpretation and teleological interpretation to analyze primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The results of this study indicate that there are two ways of legal protection in the passive subjective Novation case, namely preventive and repressive legal protection. Preventive legal protection can be done by making a new statutory regulation or adding provisions to existing laws and regulations regarding passive subjective novation of credit agreements by using mortgage guarantees. Meanwhile, repressive legal protection can be carried out by giving sanctions to violators of the agreement that has been made related to passive subjective novation of credit agreements by using mortgage guarantees, namely in the form of compensation, fulfillment of achievements, and a combination of compensation and fulfillment of achievements.

Corruption is a crime that is difficult to eradicate because the perpetrators of corruption usually have a strong economic and political position so that corruption is classified as a white-collar crime, crimes as business, economic crimes, official crime, and abuse of power. The purpose of this research is to know the urgency of providing legal protection for witnesses to perpetrators who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation of Corruption Crimes. This research is normative legal research using the statute approach, philosophical approach, and case approach. The results can be explained that the urgency of providing legal protection for perpetrators of witnesses who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation of Corruption Crimes because Justice Collaborator is the main actor who can help uncover a crime because it has the potential to have evidence to drag the main perpetrator and other suspects in. Third, the future arrangements for perpetrator witnesses who are willing to cooperate with law enforcement still cannot be used as a strong legal basis regarding the right of commutation of sentence for Justice Collaborators in criminal justice by law enforcement officers and many have weaknesses, especially in terms of commutation of sentences for Justice Collaborators for their testimonies in assisting law enforcement officers but are only used as considerations by judges without any binding power that obliges judges to provide leniency.

Business is a risk. There is no guarantee the business is run By the board of Directors who will always bring profit. One day profit, no profit, and another time can lose. When business decisions are taken by the board of Directors losses especially in significant amounts can be ascertained will happen nervousness on the board of Directors of the Company. State-Owned Enterprises established for business purposes in the full operation of risk. Law No. 19 of 2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises does not regulate the protection of the Board of Directors of the Company, meanwhile, Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies regulation of the protection of the Board of Directors of its implementation gives rise to multi-interpretation. Business decisions made by the Board of Directors of the Company in accordance with the principles of Business Judgement Rule are business risk, should get legal protection. The purpose of this research is to find out the weaknesses of this legal protection. This research includes normative legal research with a statutory approach with The analysis technique in this research is investigation strategy. The results show that there is no legal certainty regarding business decisions taken by Directors who experience losses in business transactions so that the Government / DPR must amend the BUMN Law by adding articles on the legal protection of the Directors of Persero.