To illustrate further of the complexity of cost allocation, let us give an illustration as follows:
A, B, and C is having lunch together in a pizza parlor, where only A and B are paying (they are giving C a treat because today is his birthday). They order a pan of pizza, assuming that the pizza have been sliced into eight slices. Suppose that A eats 4 slices, B eats 2 slices, and C eats 2 slices.
The total cost of pizza is 800. How should that cost be divided between A and B?

There are two solution that I'm going to propose to you:

A> Each slice gets allocated 100, so A will get 400, B will get 200, and C will get 200. But since C is not paying, then his 200 will be allocated to A and B proportionally based on relative slices eaten. So A will get an additional 400 / (400+200) x 200 = 133 so he get a total of 533, and B will get an additional 200 / (400+200) x 200 = 67 so he get a total of 267.
B> Each slice gets allocated 100, so A will get 400, B will get 200, and C will get 200. But since C is not paying, then his 200 will be allocated to A and B equally. So A will get an additional of 100 so he get a total of 500, and B will get an additional of 100 so he get a total of 300.

Now which one is the most logical?

The solution B> is the most logical. Here we learn that cost allocation need not necessarily done in one go, but can be in sequences. Let us view the pizza costing 800 as a resource, and that A, B, and C are the users of that resources. We can see that C here, because he is not paying, can not be considered an end user, so the cost allocated to him must be further allocated to the real end users, in this case A and B.

In the first illustration, we allocate the cost of pizza based on the most logical resource usage, that is the slices of pizza actually consumed. Therefore in allocating the cost remaining in C toward A and B, we must do so based on the most logical way. In absent of any other information, then the most logical way is to split the cost equally, as illustrated in B>.

We can take the problem further by adding another information: C is actually the friend of A, and B have never met C before. Therefore, it become logical that A should bear the whole cost of C alone, because C is his friend. B who have never known C before should not be burdened with the cost. Unless, of course, B have agreed in advance that he will also bear the cost of C.

Cost Allocation is the foundation of all knowledge in Cost Accounting. Here we will illustrate what is Cost Allocation.

Suppose that A and B are having lunch together by ordering a pizza; a large Meat Lovers with Stuffed Crust. We shall assume that a large pizza consists of eight slices, as is common in all pizza parlors. The cost for the pizza is 800. Now, we need to allocate that cost (800) to A and B, to find out how much does A really incurs and how much does B really incurs in cost.

First of all, we can take the simplest approach, and equally divide the cost for A and B. This way A gets allocated 400, and B gets allocated 400. In the absence of any other information, then we can say that this method of allocation is reasonably accurate.

However, suppose that we get an additional information that A is consuming 5 slices of pizza, while B is consuming 3 slices of pizza, then our previous method becomes inaccurate. Our method of dividing the cost equally between A and B does not reflect the actual cost incurred by each person.

To improve our method of cost allocation, we can use the newly available information, the actual slices of pizza consumed by each person. We reason that allocating based on slices of pizza actually consumed is more reasonable and more accurate than simply dividing the cost equally. Therefore, A will be allocated 5/8 x 800 = 500, and B will be allocated 3/8 x 800 = 300.

We can go even further by finding out if the slices in a pan of pizza are of equal size. Sometimes it happened that the pizza chef did not slice the pizza exactly in the middle, so the resulting slices will be of different sizes. If the information about the size of each slices of pizza can be obtained in an economically feasible way, including the future pizza lunches they will be having together again, then we are justified in using that information to further increase the accuracy of our cost allocation method. But as we can see, it will not be easy to find out the size slices that A and B actually eat, and it will be quite difficult and inconvenient for them to measure every slice of pizza that they are going to eat, so the use of this information will not be justified.

-- to be continued --

Dirjen Pajak telah mengeluarkan bentuk formulir baru untuk SPT Masa PPh 21 & 26, berlaku mulai masa pajak Juli 2009.

Formulirnya (beserta kelengkapannya) dapat di-download disini.

Sayangnya formulir-formulir tersebut dalam format Word, bukan Excel.

===================================================

The tax authority have issued a new form for Income Tax Article 21 & 26 monthly tax returns, to be in use starting from the tax period of July 2009.

The forms (and the necessary attachments) can be downloaded here.

Too bad the forms are in Word, not in Excel format.

Now I'm offering in-house taxation training to companies or individuals.
The topics covered are as follow:
* Ketentuan Umum Perpajakan (General Rules of Taxation)
* Income Tax for Individuals
* Income Tax for Corporate
* Income Tax Article 21/26 -> tax withholding for employees, etc.
* Income Tax Article 23/26 -> tax withholding for rents, services, etc.
* Income Tax Article 4(2) -> 'final' tax withholdings
* Income Tax Article 22 -> income tax for certain industries and imports
* Income Tax Article 24 -> income tax for income from foreign countries
* Accounting for Taxation
* Land and Property Tax
* Land and Property Acquisition Duty (BPHTB)
* Stamp Duty (Bea Meterai)
* Value Added Tax (VAT)
* Sales Tax for Luxury Goods
* Tax Court
* Import Taxes
* Tax Facilities
* International Taxation
* eSPT (Electronic Tax Reports)

I can deliver the training in English or in Indonesia. Flexible hours, including evening and weekends.
Contact me if anyone is interested.
chris3973073@yahoo.com

Anda mengikuti berita tentang Prita Mulyasari yang lagi heboh belakangan ini? Salah satu beritanya dapat dibaca di Kompas.com. Klik disini untuk membacanya. Selagi disana, bacalah juga mengenai berita-berita terkait lainnya.

Disini kita akan mencoba merenungkan kasus ini dari sudut pandang netral, dengan mengesampingkan emosi.

Sebelumnya, mari kita ringkas fakta-fakta yang ada. Si Prita kita sebut A dan si RS Omni kita sebut B untuk memudahkan pembahasan.

• Si A telah menggunakan jasa si B --> jelas, bisa dibuktikan dari pengakuan kedua pihak dan juga arsip administrasi RS.
• Si A tidak puas dengan jasa si B --> tindakan yang dilakukan A menunjukkan hal tersebut, dan diakui sendiri oleh si A.
• Si A telah membuat email (surat elektronik) yang isinya adalah hal-hal negatif tentang si B dan menyebutkan bahwa itu adalah pengalaman pribadinya --> ini bisa dibuktikan dari copy / arsip email tersebut, juga dari pengakuan si A.
• Si B merasa bahwa nama baiknya telah dicemarkan dengan email tersebut, kemudian menggugat si A secara perdata, dan dimenangkan oleh pengadilan.

Bagaimana dengan hal-hal negatif tentang si B yang termuat di dalam email tersebut? Sampai saat ini belum terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan, dan juga belum diperkarakan di pengadilan.

Berdasarkan fakta-fakta tersebut, salahkah si A dalam membuat email tersebut?
Ya salah, karena ia telah mencemarkan nama baik si B. Persoalannya bukan mengenai apakah isi email tersebut benar atau tidak, tetapi mengenai apakah isi email tersebut dapat dibuktikan. Kalau seandainya setiap orang bebas menuduh dan menjelek-jelekkan pihak lain, dunia ini akan sungguh kacau, karena pasti banyak sekali orang yang akan menyebarkan berita bohong untuk menjatuhkan pihak lain. Memang pasti ada juga sebagian orang yang menyebarkan berita yang benar tentang hal-hal negatif.

Serba salah kan, yang mana yang mau dilindungi? Apakah hak orang yang menyebarkan berita yang benar, ataukah hak orang untuk tidak dicemarkan dengan berita bohong. Pada akhirnya peraturan perundangan yang ada memilih untuk melindungi yang terakhir ini. Meskipun saya sendiri tidak setuju, namun keberadaan peraturan ini (UU ITE) dapat dipahami juga kepentingannya. Memang tidak adil, tapi mau diapakan lagi? Apa yang adil bagi satu pihak menjadi tidak adil bagi pihak lain.

Saya pribadi merupakan orang yang tidak setuju sama sekali dengan aturan yang ada di UU ITE tersebut. Namun kenyataan bahwa UU tersebut sudah sah, dan dengan demikian saya harus ikut mentaati peraturan didalamnya.

Lalu bagaimana bila suatu saat terjadi hal seperti yang dialami Prita ini? Berikut saran saya:

• Mencari cara agar komplain ini sampai kepada pucuk pimpinan RS tersebut. Siapa tahu hal negatif ini adalah semata-mata ulah karyawan RS, dan bukan merupakan kebijakan RS itu sendiri yang seperti itu.
  
• Menempuh jalur hukum, dengan meminta bantuan LBH
• Bila ternyata semua hal tersebut gagal, dan anda memang di pihak yang benar dan tertindas, ya pintar-pintar sedikit lah, carilah cara menyebarkan informasi tersebut diluar cara yang gampang ditelusuri seperti email.

Saya tidak bermaksud menghasut anda sekalian untuk melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan melawan hukum. Tapi seringkali sistem yang kita miliki di negara ini memang tidak sempurna, dan seringkali memang kita harus berjuang "diluar sistem".