Law Number 16 of 2009 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP), regulates administrative sanctions and criminal sanctions. The KUP Law method does not yet regulate how to save the loss of state revenue because it does not regulate the implementation of criminal fines, the legal implications of different decisions that cause legal uncertainty, injustice and have not provided benefits, especially in an effort to collect taxes. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze, and find the urgency of regulating criminal sanctions for the deprivation of assets in tax crime. This study is normative legal research with a legislation approach, historical approach, comparative law approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. Analysis of legal material is done with a descriptive perspective. The results of this study indicate that the inclusion of fine sanctions in the KUP Act turns out to lead to different interpretations resulting in legal uncertainty and does not provide economic benefits for the state in law enforcement, because the sanctions for fines are not complemented by implementing sanctions in the form of additional criminal sanctions in the form of confiscation of assets belonging to the defendant or an act (maatregel) in the form of requiring improvement of corporate governance in accordance with good corporate governance or placement of a legal company, where an economic crime is committed under a certain period of time, so that in the future the KUP Act, additional sanctions or actions to strengthen / complete in the future criminal sanctions for fines.

After the first amendment to the 1945 Constitution, there was a shift in power to form laws from the President to the DPR. The power of the DPR to form laws is shared with the President because each bill is discussed jointly by the DPR and the President for mutual approval. The joint approval of the DPR and the President is the binding point for the two state institutions that produce material laws. However, there are several bills that have been mutually agreed with the DPR and the President that have not been signed by the President. After a period of thirty days has been lapsed, the mutually agreed Bill by the DPR and the President shall become Law, even without the ratification of the President, and must be promulgated. This phenomenon raises question of why the President does not ratify the Bills he has approved. This research is a normative research with a statutory, conceptual, historical and comparative approach, which is expected to provide coherence and continuity to constitutional theories, so that the process of forming laws with outputs at each stage to be with more measurable results.

This study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the legal implications which arise regarding the subject and scope of responsibility for the fulfillment of human rights including the social security rights of Indonesian citizens, as referred to the Constitution as the highest law and to reflect on the purpose of law or constitution (conclusion of law, legal discovery). This type of research is normative juridical, with a philosophical approach, a conceptual approach and a statutory approach. Data analysis was carried out using qualitative techniques with descriptive analysis. The research results show that there is no clarity regarding the legal implications of the subject and the scope of responsibility for the fulfillment of human rights including social security rights. This ambiguity occurs because of the blurring of legal norms regarding human rights in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, particularly regarding the regulation of the responsibility for the fulfillment of human rights including social security rights, regarding the subjects who must be responsible for and the scope of their responsibilities for implementing social guarantees.

This study aims to analyze the legal considerations used by the head of the district court in the adjudicate the auction of execution. The other purpose is to analyze the legal implications related to the enactment of the Security Rights Law and the Minister of Finance’s Regulation on Instructions for Auction Implementation. This study uses normative juridical research with a statute approach and a case approach. The results show that there are three basic considerations used by the head of the district court in determining the object's limit value over the auction of security rights execution. The juridical implication that the head of the district court is wrong in applying Article 6 of the Security Rights Law. The determination of the limit value by the head of the district court contrary to the principle of the judge being passive and waiting.

At the level of taxpayer obligations (tax consciousness), there must be an awareness of every taxpayer to calculate, pay, and report assets which are the obligation of every citizen and taxpayer compliance with tax laws and regulations. In addition, every taxpayer has a willingness for someone's desire and desire to pay taxes that can be interpreted as a value contributed through regulations by not obtaining direct (contra-achievement) services. This research is holistically the duty of the Directorate General of Taxes to carry out guidance and supervision in cutting or collecting taxes, due to inaccuracies that have resulted in administrative sanctions in the form of a 200% fine from the lack of tax deductions or collection The human resources possessed by the tax authorities are actually not ready to implement the self-assessment system and certain interests have emerged to do tax avoidance, tax evasion, and tax mindedness.