Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Analisis Yuridis Pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas (PT) Yang Tidak Beroperasi

View through CrossRef
Dissolution of a limited liability company consists of some methods pursuant to Article 142 of Law No. 40/2007 On Limited Liability Companies, one of which is by a court ruling. According to explanation of Article 146 of the Law on Limited Liability Companies, dissolution of a limited liability company with an excuse that it no longer operates has to be proved with a letter submitted to tax agency. However, the law does not mention who is authorized to submit the letter to tax agency. This research analyses the position of directors and stockholders in the process of dissolution of a limited liability company that no longer operates, the consideration and ruling handed down by the judge in the Verdict of the Supreme Court Number 1618 K/PDT/2016 and the Verdict of the Constitutional Court No. 63/PUU-XVI/2018 concerning legal certainty of position of director and stockholders related to the process of dissolution of a limited liability company that no longer operates, and the legal protection for stockholders in case the director fail to perform their duties and report to related institutions in the process of dissolution of a limited liability company. This research employs normative juridical method and is juridical analytical. The data are collected through library research conducted by document study. The data analysed qualitatively and the conclusion is drawn deductively. The juridical analysis demonstrate that concerning the dissolution of a limited liability company that no longer operates in the Verdict Number 1618 K/PDT/2016, the Panel of Judges state that the director is rightful to submit a letter related tax agency regarding that the limited liability company no longer operates. In relation with the explanation of article 146 paragraph 1 letter C o the Law on Limited Liability Companies in the Verdict No. 63/PUU-XVI/2018, the Panel of Judges state that the explanation is not unconstitutional an has provuded adequate explanation that although director is not mentioned as the organ of a limited liability company that shall submit the letter to tax agency concerning its non-operating company, it has to be clearly understood that the Law on Limited Liability Companies delegate the responsibility of organization of the company only to the director. With this anlysis, it is suggested that more assertive and clear regulations be made in order to prevent various interpretations patricularly in understanding the explanation of the Law No. 40/2007 on Limited Liability Companies.  
Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Jambi University
Title: Analisis Yuridis Pembubaran Perseroan Terbatas (PT) Yang Tidak Beroperasi
Description:
Dissolution of a limited liability company consists of some methods pursuant to Article 142 of Law No.
40/2007 On Limited Liability Companies, one of which is by a court ruling.
According to explanation of Article 146 of the Law on Limited Liability Companies, dissolution of a limited liability company with an excuse that it no longer operates has to be proved with a letter submitted to tax agency.
However, the law does not mention who is authorized to submit the letter to tax agency.
This research analyses the position of directors and stockholders in the process of dissolution of a limited liability company that no longer operates, the consideration and ruling handed down by the judge in the Verdict of the Supreme Court Number 1618 K/PDT/2016 and the Verdict of the Constitutional Court No.
63/PUU-XVI/2018 concerning legal certainty of position of director and stockholders related to the process of dissolution of a limited liability company that no longer operates, and the legal protection for stockholders in case the director fail to perform their duties and report to related institutions in the process of dissolution of a limited liability company.
This research employs normative juridical method and is juridical analytical.
The data are collected through library research conducted by document study.
The data analysed qualitatively and the conclusion is drawn deductively.
The juridical analysis demonstrate that concerning the dissolution of a limited liability company that no longer operates in the Verdict Number 1618 K/PDT/2016, the Panel of Judges state that the director is rightful to submit a letter related tax agency regarding that the limited liability company no longer operates.
In relation with the explanation of article 146 paragraph 1 letter C o the Law on Limited Liability Companies in the Verdict No.
63/PUU-XVI/2018, the Panel of Judges state that the explanation is not unconstitutional an has provuded adequate explanation that although director is not mentioned as the organ of a limited liability company that shall submit the letter to tax agency concerning its non-operating company, it has to be clearly understood that the Law on Limited Liability Companies delegate the responsibility of organization of the company only to the director.
With this anlysis, it is suggested that more assertive and clear regulations be made in order to prevent various interpretations patricularly in understanding the explanation of the Law No.
40/2007 on Limited Liability Companies.
 .

Related Results

KONTRAK PERSEROAN TERBATAS YANG MENGANDUNG TINDAKAN ULTRA VIRES
KONTRAK PERSEROAN TERBATAS YANG MENGANDUNG TINDAKAN ULTRA VIRES
Kegiatas usaha perseroan terbatas dilaksanakan oleh organ perseroan terbatas yaitu Direksi perseroan terbatas, Direksi dapat mewakili perseroan terbatas untuk melakukan kontrak den...
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM DALAM HAL DIREKSI PERSEROAN TERBATAS MELAKUKAN ULTRA VIRES
PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM DALAM HAL DIREKSI PERSEROAN TERBATAS MELAKUKAN ULTRA VIRES
Prinsip hukum ultra vires menetapkan bahwa batas kewenangan bertindak daribadan hukum memberikan pengertian, “adalah bukan tindakan hukum itu tidak bolehdilakukan, tetapi tindakan ...
Pertanggungjawaban Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Yang Melakukan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum
Pertanggungjawaban Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Yang Melakukan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum
Abstract-Directors in a limited liability company can be likened to a life for the company. The Board of Directors in carrying out their duties in managing a limited liability comp...
Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Pengelolaan Investasi Pada Perusahaan Asuransi Jiwa
Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Pengelolaan Investasi Pada Perusahaan Asuransi Jiwa
Masalah penelitian ini adalah bagaimana pengelolaan investasi yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan PT. Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) menurut Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (POJK) yang b...
FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI MORTALITAS PADA PASIEN DENGAN FRAKTUR COSTA: Literature Review
FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI MORTALITAS PADA PASIEN DENGAN FRAKTUR COSTA: Literature Review
FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI MORTALITAS PADA PASIEN DENGAN FRAKTUR COSTA: Literature  Review Anna Tri Wahyuni1), Masfuri2),  Liya Arista3)1,2,3 Fakultas Ilmu Keperawatan Univers...
KECEMASAN SAAT PANDEMI COVID 19: LITERATUR REVIEW Hardiyati, Efri Widianti, Taty Hernawaty Departemen Keperawatan Jiwa Poltekkes Kemenkes Mamuju Sulbar, Universitas Pad...
IMPLIKASI KEWAJIBAN LAPORAN KEUANGAN PADA PERSEROAN PERORANGAN
IMPLIKASI KEWAJIBAN LAPORAN KEUANGAN PADA PERSEROAN PERORANGAN
Abstract  To improve economic conditions which are categorized as still low, the government as the holder of the regulatory function opens opportunities for micro and small busines...
Kewenangan Satgas Yuridis Dalam Memproses Data Yuridis Pada Program Ptsl Di Bpn Kabupaten Pandeglang
Kewenangan Satgas Yuridis Dalam Memproses Data Yuridis Pada Program Ptsl Di Bpn Kabupaten Pandeglang
Pelaksanaan dalam memproses data yuridis pada program PTSL dilakukan oleh Satgas Yuridis PTSL namun dalam kewenangannya, Satgas Yuridis memiliki hambatan sehingga dapat mengakibatk...

Back to Top