El t~AJA?!~I":-g.Jl:¥~(PIT) 2013 ~~ii+~:-g.Jl:~J~(.lffIT) 2013 if- 6 J1ISBN: 978-986-6600-56-2

~~~~~~(Innovation& Entrepreneurship)• 1ft ~ ~ 001&ill #Jj-ill I"~ ~;;t i:; ?~ill #Jj-ill I"~~J& 1

••• .~t~A*t~~§~1&~~~M~±~~*~ .:L~~ ~iL~1ftf,ii1t ~~ ~ t .,:;lIt * sa ~HH.-&t ~j.;]:] .:LI" .ti·Nlt~~~iL~1ft~~i1t~~~ t '':;lIt*~Jl~ll~~ ~

• Applying the Open Innovation to SME of service industry 10Tony Yang Student member of CIADA USA branchMike C. Yang Director of CIADA USA branch

• n5ill i!11t 11ffJ ill 1ft~ ~ ~ fft- loA ~ .i~;f -ij- ilJ#Jj- ~~ fi~17L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41'BA 1f .:L I" .ti1JtLt~ ~ ~iL,{~£t «:~I* ~~*At.~*~J&~.

13~k it k ¥ ~ -l-f l£ ¥ ~ (pfj-) 2013 ~ ~ 't1\ -f l£~;~ (J:. f!1}- ) 2013-if- 6 AISBN: 978-98G-6GOO-5G-2

~1~~1~(Innovation& Entrepreneurship)• A. J'o {;£;f~fi1.1t Jli4:W :t LYJi R:JI I!I 1:-~hff Jt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67

Jii ~ 1-' ~Lf~k ¥ #£of-f l£¥ ~M~i" §ifflk¥#£of-fl£¥~~~~ ~1.H-~-1~$·~a~~s~_~IJI'.'f5J'l "T T \.l-I W :.:r /'...:.:r ;tt/>T<. 1?<-'I'A..Jll J~ ;;r- g "-..'!'..:.:riJ-

~R-J,a.>,r ~ .1. ~\l-_~ -1'~~.~~~~SllB_ ~~I' /\:J -:lto T \.l-I W :.:r /'...:.:r ;ttI>T<. 1?<-'I'A..Jll J~ ;;r- g L:.:r;r'

• ~J'!L'tf-&.%-;ffj-i!-;J~ttof~-ljJ-~f£l£:f~I~jj5fJ 75iB :.:£-~'" ~ ;M:. .i. _El m 1"~ .r-; ~ / ..••.:.:r

1&~t£ kitk¥

• 103

• FIXED COSTS ALLOCATION PROBLEM" "." " .."." "" 108~:)(~ ~qk¥~~m;f!¥~~~M- ~ q k¥.:L -l-fl£¥ ~

• .tt1liltm J'o 11:.~ if ti--~),M-~tJk ~G 7.1 Jfi 1111:. ~ 1YIJ 114m~~ ~OO*Atf.A.¥~~~.I~~ ~OO*Atf.A.¥~~~.

• *T ~ liP- '*- 1f tf "'*-" .!:j " 'if " ~ - Jll:. :~~:4f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116*tt 7t Jl P' .:L ¥ ~JtrJj ¥ ~

II

§t~}dt A " ~ -t1fJ.! $ ~ (Pfj-) 2013 ~ ~ 't1\1fJ.! t~:I:~( J:.1ffl- ) 2013 if- 6 JjISBN: 978-986-6600-56-2

~~1fJ.!(Marketing& Distribution Channel)• 9;of:;J! ~ t~~ -$-~~ fq E.~ h n~1*-Z...hff 1E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119

tM"oo ~ A # A$t--H jftR.$ ~t~7~* A#A$t-ttjftR.$~

• = .tf, k A~ ~1_'<.-!£ ~ ~ IHI &.4> r+1 ~ J;Jl. *~ ~ T fL oJL:Iti 1-'r""'- 19PJ ll'J4:. ~ ,'j", -vr I Ju .•••.•.•.....•...•..•••.•.......•..•

;*11 ~iL-:fj1t.gijij[A$ffi,gi;~ ~ iL-:fj1t.gijij[A$~~~ tJt ~ iL-:t;1t.gijij[A$;jf~ ~iL-:fj1t.gijij[A$

137

• B*311A~.~.BOO.$~~fi~~~~.~-t9a&.~~-t9a~~.:t..htf 1E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148M -er •• :1 .J-. .:lJ: .J-. »J. 4-~t;:c~ ~fl »J. ~~Tt AJttL ./\...~..A...'+ a 0 ~ ol\l:..:rm

.t~ A#A$1f~$m~±~ •••~}L~1:t A#A$M;Jt1:-~~$ ~

• 156

• 167

III

~,~2013 I@~ ~ 1\:g.J£t;iil:l:j (J:..1Ht) 2013 if- 6 A

ISBN: 978-98G-6600-5()-2~~1f~(Marketing & Distribution Channel)• ~ ~ .E; b. :~~'¢Iiil.c!l;Z. ~ TJ!9. 1* IHl 1~ g;J -:Ji- zn.*:f./ a f'FJ 0 T'5 3'l"'j$JX. J~ ~ '1'7 '/, '9~J "iT' ~ .'j;:<:,,~}'l1... ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

+A;:J 20> it. r? .J- jJ}. BiI fll':{. -ih :>.'& jJ}. e.1'0 U 'T :tl<."t .A. '-T' ~ r;f:,- li'J .lJn '-T' ;r-

~~a1f ~~**I@~/lij;f~*~7fz;f~f. ~ ~* * I@~ /lij;f~* ~

176

• .j~~ ~1t R~Ai~PJt~.j~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182~.:L~~t 3!.f **/lij *~± ±

• 190

• Does Macao Suffer From Dutch Disease? A Theoretical Model on Macao's GamblingBooms 196KE, Jing Ying Jl r,.:L* rJt /lij* ~

• Sports Management Information System to Reduce Failure of Sports 214OrganizationMuhammad Rizky Pribadi STMIKJSTIE MDP, PALEMBANG, INDONESIA

• The Role of Zakat on the Country's Economy 219RINI APRILIA STIE MDP, PALEMBANG, INDONESIAYULIZAR KASIH STIE MDP, PALEMBANG, INDONESIA

• A study of the relationship between managerial philosophies of a peace culture andcross-cultural ma 226~AA~ t~.***~44~~a1t:g.~*~

• Suggestive Human Resource Policies on Events of Foxconn Jump 244;far 1~J4'- !J.. n .:L 'if: rJt¥-~A;:5t ~ fj; ~ }J ft it rJt

IV

EJ ~~*- '**--t ~ t" {- J.!¥ ~ (PIT) 2 a 13 ~ ~ 't 1\ {- J.!~:i~ ( J:.. fff}- ) 2 a 13 -fF-6 }jISBN: 978-986-6600-56-2

xt~ifl.!(Marketing & Distribution Channel)• REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS TRANSFER LAND AND BUILDING

TAX(PBB-P2) AS A REGIONAL TAX 250

SitiKhairani, SE, Ak.,M.SiTrisnadiWijaya, SE,S.Kom

v

REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS TRANSFER LAND ANDBUILDING TAX(PBB-P2) AS A REGIONAL TAX

SitiKhairani, SE, Ak.,M.SiEmail: sitLkhairani@mdp.ac.id

TrisnadiWijaya, SE,S.KomEmail:trisnadLwijaya@gmail.com

ABSTRACTSince the enactment of Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies,

urban and rural sectors of the PBB which had been the center of taxes transferred to localtaxes. This review is just to see the positive and negative impacts of a tax when the PBBbecame the central and local taxes. This review using descriptive analysis techniques.Thedata used are secondary data such as the number of district / municipal managementassigns PBB-P2 years 2011-2014. Data were obtained from the literature, websites TaxMinistry, and the Ministry of Finance website. This review have some conclusion thatthetransfer of Land and Building Tax Rural and Urban (PBB-P2) bring some positiveimpact and the weakness of the PBB- P2 is the transfer of the readiness and abilityofeach region to facilitate the supporting infrastructure that is not the same.

1. INTRODUCTIONTo conduct the general administration and development activities required considerable

amount of funds. The required funds continue growing along with increased development. No statefunding revenue sources derived from internal funds and external funds. For the IndonesianGovernment attempted to reduce external funding and continue to increase the amount of staterevenue from internal sources. One source of internal funds that provide a substantial contributionIS tax. Taxes are the largest source of state revenue is used for governance, public services andnational development. Approximately 70% - 80% of all state revenue from taxes and this amount islikely to increase from year to year in line with the needs of the state budget. Here is the proportionof tax revenue to the state budget in 2006 and 2010.

Table 1

Proportion of State Revenue to State Budget year 2006 until 2010

Budget Year r-----------~----~------~Amount (in billion)State Budget Tax

Percentage ofTax to State

Budget

No

2010 949.66 742.74 78%12009 985.73 725.842 74%

3 2008 781.35 59l.98 76%2007 723.06 509.46 70%42006 723.06 416.31 67%5

Source: www.depkeu.go.id, year 2013

250

CeareGoThan:areEaem

urltaxeelun20toth

2. DIS

co

III

co

da

as

M

(PreopIarVvreacC101

adth:101

th:PI";

deto

an

AND

d Levies,ed to localn the PBBiques.Theagement

bsites Taxion thatthee positiveability of

f

Taxes levied by the authority can be divided into two: central tax and local taxes.Central tax is the tax collected and managed by the central government, while local taxesare withheld and managed by either local governments Government Level I / ProvincialGovernment Level II / District and the City. Land and Building Tax (PBB) is a local tax.The legal basis is the Act No. 12 year 1985 which converted into Act No. 12 year 1994,and the last is Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies. Land and buildingare two objects of the PBB, both of which are owned, earned benefits, and controlled.Earth's surface is land and water, while the building is a construction technique thatembedded or attached to both land and in the waters of Indonesia.

Since the enactment of Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies,urban and rural sectors of the PBB which had been the center of taxes transferred to localtaxes. And whether this transfer of authority will harm the country or reduce receptioncenter? Directorate General of Taxation is responsible for implementing the PBB-P2until December 31, 2013 as long as not implemented by the district / city. But starting in2014 the PBB management is the responsibility of the district / kota. This review is justto see the positive and negative impacts of a tax when the PBB when the PBB becamethe central and local taxes.

2. DISCUSSION

This review usmg descriptive analysis techniques. Descriptive analysis was

conducted to determine and be able to explain the characteristics of the studied variables

in a given situation (Sekaran 2009, p. 158). Used in this review reference material

consisting of papers, articles, and past research on the PBB ever done in Indonesia. The

data used are secondary data such as the number of district / municipal management

assigns PBB-P2 years 2011-2014. Data were obtained from the literature, websites Tax

Ministry, and the Ministry of Finance website.

The transfer of the management of Land and Building Tax Rural and Urban(PBB-P2) from the central government to local government is a form of follow-upregional autonomy and fiscal decentralization. Policy form was poured into Act No. 28of 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies. With the transfer of the activities of theprocess of data collection, assessment, determination, administration, collection / billingand service of the PBB-P2 will be held by the Local Government (District/City).Widespread implementation of regional autonomy and fiscal decentralization and itsresponsibility began in 2004, as outlined in Act No. 32 year 2004aboutLocalGovernment and Act No. 33 year 2004 about Fiscal Balance between theCentral Government and Local Government. Both of these laws regulate subjects oflocal government authority and funding for the implementation of the authority. Inaddition there is also the Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies regionsthat regulate matters concerning the authority of the local Goverment do the collection tolocal communities in order to obtain funding to implement regional development. Boththe principal Act and the Law on local taxes and levies are essentially linked to a basicprinciple which is often called the money follows function. In the framework of fiscaldecentralization main instrument used is the granting of authority to local governmentsto levy taxes.

Regional autonomy is the right, authority, and duty to regulate autonomous regionsand manage their own affairs and interests of local communities appropriate legislation

251

(ActNo. 32 year 2004). While decentralization is not only the devolution of authorityfrom central government to local governments but also devolution of some powers ofgovernment to the private sector in the form of privatization (Mardiasmo, 2009 p. 24).The central government must not allow for the very conduct and supervise allimplementation of development across the region is of infinite extent. So with theimplementation of fiscal decentralization is that local governments are able participateactively in national development. The principle of decentralization is also likely to be afactor in the opinion I made a policy judgment for the government to establish urban andrural sectors of the PBB to local taxes.

In addition to considerations of fiscal decentralization on which to baseconsiderations, the PBB and the revenue sharing BPHTB from central government tolocal governments are, in my opinion may be the reason why the transfer occurred. Hereare the results of the PBB division of the central government to local governments:

• Funds for the outcome of the PBB acceptance by 90% with the following details:1. 16.2% for the province and distributed to the provincial Regional Treasury Account;2. 64.8% for district / city and distributed to the concerned Regional Treasury Account district /

city;3. 9% for collection costs;

• 10% of the Government revenue of PBB distributed to all districts and cities based on therealization of the PBB acceptance of the current budget year, with a proportion as follows:

1. 65% evenly distributed to all districts and cities;2. 35% distributed as incentives to local counties and cities that the realization of the previous

year to reach / exceed revenue plan certain sectors.

• Revenue Sharing from BPHTB at 80% with the following details:1. 16% for the province concerned and distributed to the provincial Regional Treasury Account;2. 64% to counties and cities producing regions and distributed to Regional Treasury Account

district / city.

• 20% of the Government of BPHTB distributed with equal portions to all counties and cities.As can be seen in the division upon receipt of PBBfunds and BPHTB, then the

PBB should not the responsibility of the central government (the process of datacollection, evaluation, designation, administrating, collection / billing and service),because almost all of its acceptance is to Regional Government.

As to which is the purpose of the removal of government PBB-P2 become regional taxesin accordance with Act No. 28 year 2009 is:

1. Increase the accountability of regional autonomy.2. Provide new opportunities to the region to impose a new levy (add types of local taxes and

levies).3. Give greater authority to levy taxes and by expanding the local tax base.4. Authorizes the county in the district tariff setting, and5. Submit tax functions as an instrument in the area of budgeting and setting.

If we look at the meaning of the above objectives, the first of the accountability ofregional autonomy, then from the point of view of the author, with PBB-P2 maketh afully local taxes will be the responsibility region, the process of data collection,assessment, determination, administration, collection / billing and service can be moreeffective. The local government has full responsibility in managing the PBB as localtaxes that may increase the region's autonomy in carrying out development in theirrespective regions without having to wait for the allocation of funds from the central

252

go(P.(a,gropofpcgcIirepethmauth

ISubje

Obje:

IarifiTaxal(NJK

Non-'ValuePayal

Source

thexse

~-~-

----

of authoritye powers of009 p. 24).pervise allo with theparticipateely to be a

h urban and

h to baseernment tourred. Hereents:

d cities., then thes of dataservice),

taxes and

tability ofmaketh a

collection,be moreas local

t in theire central

government. The PBB as local taxes can be a significant contribution to local revenue(PAD). And of course, local governments must not forget the responsibility(accountability) to the public both in terms of revenue and in terms of its use so as not togive rise to public suspicion against the local government. The second aspect ofopportunities for the imposition of a new levy (add new taxes and levies) in the opinionof the author, local governments must better understand the ins and outs of both the localpopulation, total employment, the number of investors or in other words, localgovernments know the exact potential region and also to know what is best for the region.Third expand the local tax base, which means that local governments can maximizerevenues by looking at the possibility of expanding the local tax base by not burden thepeople. The fourth regional authority in setting local tax rates, this transition is not onlythe responsibility of management, but also given the authority in setting local tax rates. Itmeans that the central government gives broad authority to the regions to set upautonomous regions so that local independence is getting stronger and not always rely onthe central government. Here's a comparison with ofthe ActPBB to the Act PDRB:

Table 2

Comparison offheAct PBB toThe Act PDRD

Description Act ofPBB Act ofPDRDSubject The person or entity that has a Same

real right to the earth, and / or (Article 78 Paragraph 1 and 2)have, menguasa and / or utilizethe building (Article 4 Paragraph1)

Object Earth and / or buildings (Article Earth and / or buildings, except2) for the area used for business

activities plantation, forestry,and mmmg. (Article 77Paragraph 1)

Tariff 0.5% (Article 5) Highest 0.3% (Article 80)Taxable Sales Value 20% till 100% (Government Not used(NJKP) Regulation No. 25 year 2002 IS

set at 20% or 40%)Non-Taxable Sales Maximum of Rp 12 million Least Rp 10 millionValue (NJOPTKP) (Article 6)Payable PBB Tariff x NJKP x Max: 0,3% x

(NJOP-NJOPTKP) (NJOP-NJOPTKP)(Article 3 Paragraph 3) (Article 77, Paragraph 4)0,5% x 20% x (Article 81)(NJOP-NJOPTKP) atau0,5% x 40% x(NJOP-NJOPTKP)(Article 7)

Source: wwwpajak.go.id, year 2013

As can be seen in the table above, it appears that the area has the authority to settheir own rates according to PBB that there is potential in the area. With the authority isexpected in terms of overall taxation services can also be better because of the goodservice can increase tax compliance which will ultimately increase tax revenues. Last as

253

budgeting instruments and arrangements in the region, from the point of view of PBB asa writer with the transfer tax area means PBB to be one of the components of a goodbudgetary revenue and expenditure side.

When compared to some countries, PBB rates in Indonesia is smallest than anothercountry in the amount of 0.3%, below 1%, which means that local governments canfurther maximize the PBB rates so as to increase local revenue and encourage economicgrowth in the region. The following comparison of PBB in Indonesia with othercountries:

Table 3

Comparison of Land and Building Tax Collection in Indonesia and Other Countries

Tax Elements Taiwan Japan Australia IndonesiaLevels of Province Municipality State District I CityGovernmentBasis for the Total value of Estimated Value of Taxable saleImposition the land market value undeveloped value

worth landValue of N/A Land 300 yen, $ 10,000 to $ MinimalNon-Taxable Building 150,000. Rp 10.000.000

200,000 yen, Different eachAssets state1,500,000 yen

Tax tariff Rated as low as 1.4% - 2.1% Progressive Maximum1% and high as rates, monitor 0.3%5.5% certain

percentage in arange with theaddition of acertainpercentage.Highest rated4%

Imposition of Tax imposed Additional 1.4% N/A Same with notTax on Vacant 2-fold of the land III an empty landLand excess of the

..mmimum size

Source:Tasniwati, 2010, p.70

With the issuance of Act No. 28 year 2009 about Regional Taxes and Levies, localgovernments now have an additional source of local revenue (PAD) derived from localtaxes, so that when this type of local taxes consists of eleven types of taxes, ieHotel Tax,Restaurant Tax, Entertainment Tax, Advertising Tax, Street Lighting Tax, Non MetallicMinerals and Rocks Tax, Parking tax, Groundwater Tax, Swallow's Nests Tax, Tax onLand and Building Rural and Urban, and the tax on Acquisition of Land and Building.Addition type Local Taxes can be seen in the following table:

254

Hotel C

RestauEntertAdverStreetParkinIntake

Source:

T

that the

revenut

PADS]

added]

Vol. N

PBB-P

transfe

NumDishDesc

B ascod

thercanmlcther

~s

ale

notd

ocalocalTax,allicK onling.

Table4

Differences Local Tax Type According to Act No. 34 year 2000

by Act No. 28 year 2009

Act No. 34 Year 2000 Act No. 28 Year 2009Hotel Tax Hotel TaxRestaurant Tex Restaurant TexEntertainment Tax Entertainment TaxAdvertising Tax Advertising TaxStreet Lighting Tax Street Lighting TaxParking Tax Parking TaxIntake of Minerals Tax Group C Non Metallic Minerals and Rocks Tax

(Nomenclature Change)Groundwater Tax (Transfer of Province)Swallow's Nest Tax (new)PBB Rural and Urban (new)Tax on Acquisition of Land and Building(new)

Source: Directorate General of Taxation, year 2013

The first city receiving PBB-P2 as a local tax is the city of Surabaya. Thus it can be said

that the city of Surabaya as a pioneer implementation of the transfer of the management of

revenues from PBB. Mayor of Surabaya, Tri IrRismaharini, MT stated, that in the year 2010,

PAD Surabaya only Rp 1 trillion, and in 2011 the city of Surabaya revenue to Rp 2 trillion. He

added the cause of the increase in revenue derived from PBB and BPHTB (Media Keuangan

Vol. No. V. 40/ December 2010, p. 8). With the success of the city of Surabaya in managing

PBB-P2 can be an example for permerintah districts / cities. The following stages of the

transfer of the management of the PBB and BPHT.

TableS

Number of District / City PBB-P2Management Recipients

Year 2011 - 2014

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014Number of 1 17 105 369District / CityDescription Surabaya Depok Banda Aceh Remains

Bogor BengkuluPalembang Lampung tengah

Bandar MetroLampungGorontalo Kab. Way

KananMedan, etc Kab.

TulangBawang,etc

255

Source: DJP, year 2013

From the above description, it is very worthy receipts submitted to PBB-P2 region.

Thus, the task can be helped the central government and the withdrawal of PBB and BPHTB

can be done optimally if the withdrawal is done by the region itself. With much reduced

taxpayer must be served by the central government, it is expected that overall taxation

services also will be much better. Because of good service will increase tax compliance of

taxpayers who will ultimately increase tax revenues. Because as we all know that taxes are a

significant source of revenue which is almost 80% state funds sourced from various kinds of

taxes that exist. In fact almost every area often difficulty in finding themselves and increase

their income. So that even after 10 years of decentralization implemented, some areas still

rely receipt of central assistance in the form of block grants or special allocation fund. This

happens because the level of revenue is still low.

Local revenue is another source of financing for the implementation of the

decentralization of the most significant because of the number of PAD is a symbol of a

regional self-reliance in the income does not depend on the central government to receive

assistance in the form of block grants and earmarked grants. PAD dominance over local tax

revenue and levies are to be authorized by a local.

By Rima Adelina research entitled "Analysis of Effectiveness and Revenue

Contribution Against Land and Building Tax Revenue in Gresik regency", that the acceptance

of PBB from 2007 till 2011 is very effective to reach more than 100%. By of that, with the

new policy Act No. 28 year 2009 about PDRD where the transfer of authority over PBB and

BPHTB from the center to the regions, is expected to provide more flexibility for local

governments to implement the maximum decentralization by increasing revenue through local

taxes so the government can carry out their duties more effectively and efficiently, and to help

improve the development and economy of the country.

So based on the above considerations, it is clear that the policy of the establishment of

PBB-P2 as local taxes are considered very appropriate. But it still can not avoid the

shortcomings and problems that occur, for example, because of the limited experience in the

area of information systems development and supporting infrastructure, there are still some

areas that are not yet ready to carry out this responsibility has not been prepared such as local

regulations and the lack of potential sources human resources which each region. For BPHTB

has been required since January 2011, it may arise losses (potential lost) due to there are some

areas that are not ready and not make local regulations. But for the PBB established no later

than January 2014, the local government should be able to take advantage of this transition

256

period :

order 11

Santana

diligent

with lx

would

local at

resourc

sociali:

IS expe

the ind

Indone

3. CO

I

1.

2.

Adelia(PBE)

.gron.

'HTB

Iuced

cation

Ice of

are a

Ids of

:rease

s still

. This

,f the

I of a

ecerve

al tax

venue

nance

th the

Band

. local

1local

o help

ent of

d the

in the

some

i local

PHTB

i some

o later

isition

period to learn and prepare everything including local regulations and human resources in

order to really be ready. Such as that conducted by the mayor of Palembang, Mr. Eddy

Santana Putra, with a lot of outreach to the community is one of the goals that PBB pay

diligent and obedient.

To overcome this problem there are several ways that can be done such as, for example,

with better coordination between central and local government. Since this is a new policy

would be better if the central government more control over its implementation before the

local authorities really be ready to implement them. And for the performance issues of human

resources, can be overcome by the central government often provides learning / training or

socialization in each region. By taking various measures for the implementation of the policy

is expected to PBB-P2 and BPHTB as local taxes can be done effectively and efficiently and

the independence of the region can be realized in accordance with the expectations of the

Indonesian government.

3. CONCLUSION

From the above review, the conclusions that can be drawn between the other:

1. Transfer of Land and Building Tax Rural and Urban (PBB-P2) bring some positive

impact, ie:

o Creating local independence, where regions can maximize local revenue by

managing their own local tax.

o Boosting economic growth in the region.

o Improve accountability to the public .

o Improve the capacity of local human resources.

o Relieve central government job as the manager ofPBB.

2. The weakness of the PBB- P2 is the transfer of the readiness and ability of each region

to facilitate the supporting infrastructure that is not the same. So there could be a lack

of accurate data collection so that the achievement of revenue targets are not as

expected.

REFERENCESAdelina.Rima.20 11. AnalisisEfektifitasdanKontribusiPenerimaanPajakBumidanBangunan(PBB) TerhadapPendapatanAsli Daerah di Kabupaten Gresik.UniversitasNegeri Surabaya.

257

Mokamat.2009. AnalisisFaktor yangMempengaru hiEfekti fi tasPenerimaanPa j akBumi danB angunan diKabupatenGrobongan.UniversitasDiponegoro Semarang.

Mardiasmo. 2009. AkuntansiSektorPublik. PenerbitAndi, Yogyakarta.

Sekaran, Uma. 2009. MetodologiPenelitianuntukBisnis.PenerbitSalembaEmpat, Jakarta.

Tasniwati.20 1O. TinjauanPeranPajakBumidanBangunansebagaiPajak Daerah. UniversitasIndonesia.

Undang-UndangRepublik Indonesia No. No. 32 Tahun 2004 tentangPemerintahDaearah

Undang-Undang No. 33 Tahun 2004tentangPerimbanganKeuanganantaraPemerintahPusatdanPemerintah Daerah.

Undang-Undang No.28 Tahun 2009 tentangPajak Daerah danRetribusi Daerah

258

201

-i-;-i-;~t-ft.~E-r\Iili~

EJ

I S I

t5ttt*.*~~.f-J£~~51591 ~1t.~*#~~Jf.t~ 168 ~(04)8511888 .•• 3011(04)8511382http://ba.dyu.edu.tw/ba5110@mail.dyu.edu.tw2013 1f- 6 jj ;iJ) f,i600 j(.

I 5 B N : 978-986-6600-56-2

259

.g. IT A.. :

.g. IT fIT :~ J:U::1t u,:1t- A:~ J:U::E-Mail :ill f,i:~ 1.: