Judge Learned Hand on Tax Planning

“Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.” (Judge Learned Hand, 1934, p. 809)

“Over and over again courts have said there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.” (Judge Learned 1947, pp. 850-851).

Rangkap Jabatan Jangan Langgar Aturan Pasar Modal

Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan (Bapepam-LK) menilai praktik rangkap jabatan di perusahaan merupakan hal yang wajar. Asalkan, rangkap jabatan tersebut tidak melanggar peraturan di pasar modal.

“Kami juga sebenarnya sudah mengaturnya untuk menghindari persaingan yang tidak sehat, tapi dengan cara yang berbeda,” kata Ketua Bapepam-LK Ahmad Fuad Rahmany di Jakarta, Kamis (18/3/2010).

Dia mengkhawatirkan, dalam persaingan usaha itu ada benturan kepentingan. Dengan demikian, soal benturan kepentingan itu yang menjadi fokus dan diatur oleh regulator pasar modal. “Kita khawatirnya adanya benturan kepentingan, yang bisa merugikan kepentingan, sehingga ini yang kita atur,” imbuh dia.

Peraturan yang mengatur itu adalah Peraturan Nomor IX.E.1 tentang Transaksi Afiliasi dan Benturan Kepentingan. Dalam pasal 1 Peraturan IX.E.1, transaksi afiliasi diartikan sebagai transaksi yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan dengan afiliasi perusahaan.

Sedangkan, benturan kepentingan diartikan sebagai perbedaan antara kepentingan ekonomis perusahaan dengan kepentingan ekonomis pribadi direkstur, komisaris, pemegang saham utama perusahaan dalam suatu transaksi yang dapat merugikan perusahaan karena adanya penetapan harga yang tidak wajar.

Kepala Biro Perundang-Undangan dan Bantuan Hukum Robinson Simbolon menambahkan, tidak ada peraturan tentang pelarangan rangkap jabatan di pasar modal. “Tapi ada peraturan IX.E.1 tentang transaksi afiliasi,” ujar dia.

Sebelumnya, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) mengeluarkan Peraturan Komisi (Perkom) Nomor 7/2010. Dalam pasal 7 Perkom tersebut dijelaskan bahwa seseorang yang menduduki jabatan sebagai direksi atau komisaris dari suatu perusahaan, pada waktu yang bersamaan dilarang merangkap menjadi direksi atau komisaris pada perusahaan lain.

Syaratnya, perusahaan-perusahaan itu berada dalam pasar yang sama, yang memiliki keterkaitan erat dalam bidang dan atau jenis usaha atau secara bersama dapat menguasai pangsa pasar barang dan atau jasa tertentu yang dapat mengakibatkan terjadinya praktek monopoli dan atau persaingan usaha tidak sehat.

Dalam laporannya, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) menyebutkan Perkom Nomor 7/ 2010 menegaskan, ruang lingkup direktur atau komisaris tidak hanya terbatas pada badan hukum berbentuk perseroan terbatas (PT), namun juga meliputi badan hukum berbentuk yayasan, firma, persekutuan perdata (maatschaap), CV atau bahkan koperasi.

Artinya, direktur atau komisaris dalam pasal tersebut diinterpretasi sebagai pemimpin puncak dan pengawas dari perusahaan non-PT yang berbentuk badan hukum.

Dengan demikian, seseorang dilarang menjadi direktur suatu perusahaan dan sekaligus menjadi pengurus koperasi pada saat bersamaan jika dua perusahaan itu bergerak dalam usaha yang saling bersaing dalam pasar bersangkutan yang sama.

Selain itu, Perkom yang diteken 7 Desember 2009 itu disusun untuk menghindari terjadinya rangkap jabatan yang seringkali menjadi penghambat persaingan usaha yang sehat.
(J Erna/Koran SI/ade)

soundsgoodha 1

The recipe to live a better a life might be simple, try not to do these two things. First, have compassion by not judging someone else through your eyes. Secondly, have a self-pity by not judging yourself through someone else’s eyes.

Shaping governance in Indonesian family businesses

BUSINESS

Shaping governance in Indonesian family businesses

Stefan S. Handoyo, Contributor, Jakarta | Wed, 04/14/2010 11:13 AM | Business

A | A | A |

Past economic crises have served as a constant reminder that observance of modern corporate governance principles continues to be a clear reflection of corporate commitment to responsible citizenship.

Both corporate governance and responsible citizenship draw inspiration from the fundamental principles of fairness, transparency and accountability.

While the principles of, and the culture behind, corporate governance are fundamentally the same everywhere, the practices and approaches to improving those practices do vary from one country to another.

The traditional approach taken to raise the standards of corporate governance practice has been to empower the corporate board. Corporate governance, therefore, is about shaping the leadership of the corporate board.

Board empowerment has assumed a high priority in many industrialized countries, where there has been an “agency problem”. However, in many other emerging economies, including Indonesia, the corporate governance problem has not been a Western-style “agency problem”. Where controlling owners take on the prerogatives of the board as well as the reins of management there may not be much of an agency problem.

The problem may well be one of checks and balances to prevent owners from committing self-dealing and related abuses. These problems have been more significant and widespread in countries where the majority of businesses is owned and controlled by families or groups of close friends.

Family-owned corporations are one of the foundations of the business community. Their creation, growth and longevity are critical to the success of the national and global economy. In Indonesia, more than 90 percent of businesses are family-owned and controlled corporations. Although facing many of the same day-to-day management issues as publicly owned companies, they must also manage many issues specific to their status.

Many of the issues faced in family businesses are akin to those faced by many ordinary citizens in their day-to-day family life. Thus, there is a close inter-relationship between how a family nurtures and upholds its values and how a family-owned corporation shapes and upholds its corporate culture.

In fact, in many cases it is the family as the oldest formal institution in man’s history that actually defines the future and direction of any human secular activities, including business undertakings; not the other way around. When the families (values) are breaking down, sooner or later the future of the businesses they own will be at risk.

But, family members come and go. The corporations, on the other hand, are built to last for many generations to come. It is very crucial, therefore, that these corporations are built upon a solid foundation that is laid and created by the first generation of the families.

It is the first generations that actually set the tone at the top for the future and sustainability of many successful family-owned corporations. They can do this by creating a “Family Constitution or Charter” where the path of good corporate governance and family business principles cross each other and a clear guideline on how the family and business matters are treated is drawn.

Family corporations have to strive to be as well-managed as the best of their competitors. The need for a professional business approach is in fact greater in a family than in a non-family corporation. Family corporations also have distinctive characteristics from which they can derive a significant competitive advantage.

A long-term perspective comes from building a business for future generations while the strength of most family corporations’ founding values give them a clear identity in an increasingly faceless corporate world.

But there are also risks associated with this type of corporation, most notably the dissension that may arise within families, particularly between family members who are actively working in the business vs those who are solely shareholders.

Thus, four key issues related to family business corporate governance need to be highlighted: (1) Recruitment system that allows willing family members to be employed should be balanced with a performance-based promotion that is resolutely the same for both family and non-family managers; (2) fairness and transparency in financial and non-financial perks and reward systems, particularly within the family, to avoid tensions over perceived injustices; (3) more formal organizational structures to clarify roles and to separate the day-to-day management from the strategic direction of the business; and (4) a regular and proper channel of communication among family members to keep the integrity and unity of the family.

A well-functioning corporate governance system also needs the expertise of non-family executives. Successful family corporations need to establish a board devoted to strategic business issues and ideally comprise members – family and non-family – with a balanced skills and expertise. The family, on the other hand, needs to be constantly involved and informed, preferably through a family council or family office.

A board allows a family corporation to establish clear lines of authority for different areas of the business. It ensures the stability and continuity of the policies and values that distinguish the firm. It also makes a necessary distinction between matters of day-to-day management and issues of strategy. Boards allow the infusion of new ideas and a broader range of experience from having outside directors/commissioners included.

Corporate boards need to be deeply conscious of their fiduciary duties. They need to ensure that all shareholders and other stakeholders as well are treated fairly. Boards need to be in a position where they can exercise independent judgment for the best interest of the corporation as a whole.

To live up to its role as a responsible corporate citizen, an effective board, a logical organizational structure, fair and transparent recruiting and promotion policies and open and free communication among family members are the key drivers to ensuring the longevity and success of a family corporation.

Finally, a family-owned corporation must also be able to go beyond the future of its own business and welfare of its own family. It must be able to address two important challenges: Grow the business and at the same time increase stakeholders’ values through their positive contributions to a wider community.

The writer is a vice president of PT Asia Select Indonesia and senior advisor of the Family Business Network in Indonesia

Bank Permata Right Issue Rp 2 Triliun

Minggu, 03/10/2010 16:45 WIB
Whery Enggo Prayogi - detikFinance


Jakarta - PT Bank Permata Tbk (BNLI) berencana menerbitkan saham baru melalui mekanisme Penawaran Umum Terbatas IV (PUT IV) atau right issue dengan total nilai hampir Rp 2 triliun. Dana hasil right issue akan digunakan untuk ekspansi perseroan di masa mendatang.

Menurut Direktur Utama Bank Permata, David Fletcher, perseroan sebanyak-banyaknya akan mengeluarkan 1.290.520.987 lembar saham baru. Harga pelaksanaan atas right issue sendiri Rp 1.549 per saham. Saham diambil dalam portepel kelas B.

Dengan demikian dana yang dikumpulkan atas aksi ini mencapai Rp 1.999.017.008.863. Perseroan akan menggelar Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa (RUPSLB) pada 3 November 2010 guna meminta restu atas right issue ini.

"PUT ini semakin memperkuat neraca PermataBank dan memberikan fleksibilitas yang lebih besar lagi dalam rangka memanfaatkan peluang pertumbuhan pada sektor perbankan Indonesia," ungkap Fletcher dalam keterangan tertulis yang diterima detikFinance di Jakarta, Minggu (3/10/2010).

Setiap pemegang enam saham lama yang namanya tercatat dalam Daftar Pemegang Saham Bank Permata pada tanggal 15 Nopember 2010, pukul 16.00 WIB, berhak atas satu saham baru.

Perseroan pun tengah menantikan persetujuan dari Bank Indonesia (BI) serta surat efektif dari BAPEPAM-LK. Perseroan menargetkan, keseluruhan proses right issue akan selesai pada akhir November 2010.

Selaku pemegang saham mayoritas, PT Astra International Tbk (ASII) dan Standard Chartered Bank berkomitmen untuk menyerap seluruh saham dalam penawaran HMETD yang menjadi haknya.

Keduanya juga bertindak sebagai pembeli siaga (standby buyer) atas sisa saham HMETD yang tidak dipesan oleh pemegang saham lainnya.

Hingga semester I-2010, BNLI mencatat rasio kecukupan modal (CAR) 13,9%. Melalui right issue ini, CAR perseroan akan terdongkak menjadi 17,6%. Laba bersih setelah pajak (audited) Bank Permata mencapai Rp 521 miliar, naik 62% dibandingkan periode yang sama tahun lalu. Dana Pihak Ketiga (DPK) pun ikut tumbuh 16% YoY, menjadi Rp 48,9 triliun.

(wep/epi)

The Antaboga Anthology IV

Committee meets defrauded victims

Hans David Tampubolon, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Wed, 01/27/2010 3:38 PM | Headlines

A | A | A |

Members of the parliamentary inquiry committee into the Bank Century bailout met Tuesday with investors defrauded by the bank's management prior to its collapse, and were lambasted for not getting to the heart of the issue.

The investors, who have for more than a year attempted to recover their money, which was not guaranteed in the bailout, were met Tuesday by Gayus Lumbuun from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), one of the committee's deputy chairmen.

"The committee members are beat after the intense inquiries of the past few days," Gayus told the depositors at the start of the hearing.

"So they decided to appoint me as their representative."

The investors were defrauded through a securities scam involving Antaboga Securities, founded by the former Century owner Robert Tantular, now serving five years in prison for the crime.

They had been led to believe they were investing in a banking product endorsed by Century, as it carried the logo of the bank and was sold through Century.

The scam, which cost the investors Rp 1.4 trillion (US$149.8 million), is among the many factors that combined to cause Century's collapse.

The bank was eventually bailed out for Rp 6.76 trillion in November 2008, and has since been rebranded as Bank Mutiara.

The chief representative of the investors, Z. Siput L., urged the House of Representatives' committee to fight for their rights and unmask the irregularities that had plagued the bank and caused them to lose their money.

Half an hour later, PDI-P legislator Maruarar Sirait showed up to the meeting, and in the next 15 minutes, the Democratic Party's Pieter Zulkifli and Didi Irawadi Syamsudin also made an appearance.

Five other committee members later turned up to meet the investors: Akbar Faisal from the People's Conscience Party (Hanura), Hendrawan Supratikno (PDI-P), Ahmad Muzani (Great Indonesia Movement Party, or Gerindra), Melchias Markus Melkeng (Golkar) and Ruhut Sitompul (Democratic Party).

All 30 members of the committee have been present at previous hearings with high-profile figures such as Vice President Boediono, former vice president Jusuf Kalla and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati.

The nine legislators at Tuesday's meeting hastened to reassure the defrauded investors that the committee would spare no effort to see that justice was done, particularly after hearing that several investors had committed suicide after losing their money.

Ruhut said he empathized with their suffering, and called Robert a "bastard".

"I want you all to know that this case truly saddens me. I might be known for telling it like it is, but deep down inside I'm as soft as snow."

At the end of the meeting, an emotional Siput handed over the investors' reports and data to the committee, saying they needed concrete action rather than promises.

"Bank Indonesia knew we'd been scammed, but its officials remained silent," he said.

"We're tired of having to fight for our money; we need firm resolution, not drama!"

Siput added the investors had sent a petition to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Finance Minister Mulyani to seek an audience.

"But we've been ignored."

The Antaboga Anthology III

Bapepam-LK blames law for weak supervision

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 12/23/2008 10:59 AM | Business

A | A | A |

Having received intense criticism for supervisory failures in relation to risky banking derivative products, the Capital Market and Financial Supervisory Agency (Bapepam-LK) passed the blame Monday onto inadequate regulations which undermined its capacity to function effectively.

Bapepam-LK head of investigation and inspection bureau Sardjito said the watchdog would need a more powerful legal basis to work from in order to ensure comprehensive settlement and supervision in the capital market.

"The existing capital market law has limited us in making necessary responses," he said.

According the 1995 Law on Capital Markets, Bapepam could not access banking records immediately without an approval from the police and the central bank.

This situation has rendered the agency unable to develop an early warning capacity on investment products sold by banks, and to respond to reports from investors on irregularities.

"It takes time, and is very frustrating. If we can't follow the money flow, where can we go then?" Sardjito said.

The agency and the central bank have been accused of being uninformed of the circumstances in responding to the case of the alleged investment fraud reportedly carried out by PT Antaboga Delta Sekuritas Indonesia, which sold its securities through the recently bailed out Bank Century.

The Century-Antaboga case unfolded weeks ago after hundreds of investors were unable to recover their funds.

The losses suffered by the investors have reached more than Rp 1.4 trillion (US$124.5 million).

Last week, hundreds of Century's customers protested to Bapepam-LK, challenging the agency's statement that Century had no authority to sell the Antaboga product, which came in the form of a mutual fund and was therefore said not to be a banking product.

Analysts, however, have argued that the Bapepam early warning system on problematic investment products, which should have been functioning, had totally failed, raising the suspicion that the agency was not serious in cracking down on recalcitrant securities houses.

Sardjito said another problem in the existing law included Bapepam's inability to conduct civil proceedings.

Civil proceedings would mean that Bapepam would be able, on behalf of investors, to file civil litigation against a company allegedly committing a crime in the capital market.

"Such a legal process would be faster, cheaper and more certain," he said.

Sardjito also said the existing criminal code could not nail all capital market criminals as it had yet to regulate for cases of sophisticated fraud through investment schemes.

"That is why we can only charge Antaboga with article 372 and 378 of the criminal code on deception," he said.(hwa)