The Effect of Sales Growth and Corporate Governance on Tax Avoidance with Company Size as a Moderating Variable

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION
Indonesia's nation's income through one source, namely taxation, where the amount obtained by this sector is very large from the total state revenue.Therefore, the government pays full attention to the taxation sector, where every economic and fiscal regulations have a significant effect on receipt of state tax revenue.For companies taxation is a liability that can cut industry profits try for minimize their tax payments.This causes dissimilarity of needs between tax policies as well taxpayers.Tax avoidance are way for avoid taxation properly without violating applicable tax policy.Tax relief can arise seen as a complex and the problem is typical due to being allowed on one side, as well as the other it is undesirable (Fauzan et al., 2021).
In 2019, the Global Witnes report revealed that between 2009 and 2017 PT Adaro Energy Tbk made tax tricks.Adaro makes a profit of the loophole through coal trading to Coaltrade Services International, which is its subsidiary in Singapore, on a lowest prices the coals was traded to another nations through large tariffs.Impact of, taxable income at Indonesia is lowest.Adaro arranged Coaltrade Services International to pay taxes of $125 million or equivalent to IDR 1.75 lowest than whats they must have pay for Indonesia (Sugianto, 2019).In 2021, the Pandora Papers report revealed that there was a report on the tax payment behavior of a large group of companies and the richest people in the world.This report reveals techniques and schemes to hide wealth from the supervisory reach of the tax authorities.The way they do it is to invest a lot of assets in shell companies, which are known in tax havens which are currently also known as investment hubs countries (Fauzia, 2021).In 2022, a tax evasion case was revealed in North Jakarta.The North Jakarta Region Building of DGT informed that there were allegations of tax avoidance by a communication equipment manufacturer, PT PR.The case that occurred was a violation of the making of fictitious tax invoices.It is estimated that the state suffered a loss of Rp 292 billion due to this incident (Faisal, 2022).
Corporate tax avoidance affected many aspects, one of the factors is sales growth.A parameter used to calculate trading performance in order to grow company revenue during decided year.Trade development can be used to predict company profits.Sales growth has an impact at tax avoidance.This proves thats the greaters the increase in sales, the greater the tax avoidance (Murkana et al., 2020).The levels of trade development have nothing immpact on taxation avoidance, because when the industry shows grow or shrink in sales development and industry will continue to pay taxes properly because the company is a taxpayer who has responsibility to obey the state (Heryana et al., 2022).The next factor is corporate governance through independents commissioner, also audit executor.Industry manager is the supervision established to run Commissioner also the Audit Executor.The audit executor has an impact at tax avoidance.This proves that the financial services policy is a number 55 / PJOK.04 / 2015 related the creation and guidance on the implementation of the work of the audit executor article 9 in the implementation of its obligations and rights has been running well.So that the audit executor through his rights can prevent wrong activities related to the industry financial information (Fadilah et al., 2021).
The audits executor has nothing impact at tax avoidance.Because the availability of the audit executor also the meetings held does nothing mean thats the higher the tax avoidance (Murkana et al., 2020).Independents Commissioner have immpact at tax avoidance, it mean the industry independent commissioners work optimally in supervising tax avoidance practices in the company (Fadilah et al., 2021).The amount independent commissioners does not immpact tax avoidance, the amount of independent commissioners has not paid attention to the complexity of the company in detail, there is still a lack of effectiveness in its supervision in terms of company policy.Thus, the presence or absence of independent commissioners does not necessarily hinder tax avoidance activities in the company (Andini et al., 2021).The next factor is institutional ownershipInstitutional possessions have no effect the avoidance of taxation, this matter is contrary to the concept of an agent which explains institutional property plays a role in overseeing manager performance (Maharani & Baroroh 2019).Belongs to the institution affects tax avoidance.Also, the belongs to the institution structure of a industry strongly in touch to level of control over the industry (Fauzan et al., 2021).
Studies on tax avoidance variables, and corporate governance have been conducted previously, different from previous research, in this research the researchers used a sample population, namely the energy sector (mining) during the 2019-2022 period.In addition, this research corporate governance variable emphasizes independent commissioners, audit committees, and belongs to the institution as well adds company amount variables as moderation.According to earnings previous study, still exist many debates that show different research results and based on the phenomena found Regarding the problem of tax avoidance, this matter is interesting to understand reexamine, therefore the motivation for this studies are for review the impact of trade development, independent commissioners, audit committees, belonging to the institution on the avoidance of taxation on the mining sector with moderation of company size.

METHODS
This discussion uses quantitative discussion techniques.This discussion uses the energy (mining) the part included at the IDX at 2019-2022 as the object of study.Researchers selected samples through purposive sampling.Energy sector companies (mining) that publish financial reports for 2019-2022 as of December 31.Energy sector companies (mining) that are profitable in 2019-2022.Energy sector companies (mining) that have variable data to be studied.Researchers used a documentation strategy to obtain data from the 2019-2022 annual reports of industrial businesses.IDX www.idx.co.id, industry websites, literature samples, research topics in print and electronic media provide the data.The data observation technique at this discussion uses descriptive statistics, classical assumptions

International Journal of Social Service and Research
Yuliana Resca, Yanuar Ramadhan

IJSSR Page 2243
testing also hypothesis testing by utilizing support from Microsoft Excel software and using statistical test tools.

Figure 1. Normality Test Results
From the test results, can be understood the Jarque Bera values is 2.730756 through probabilitys 0.255284 so that it is greater than α 0.05, the mean residuals is normal distribution.Obtained heteroscedasticity test with the Glesjer test above have probabilitys results from each independent variable> 0.05, means free violations of the heteroscedasticity assumption, so there is no need to re-do regression with white weighting.

Hypothesis Test
Hypothesis test are used in perform a significance test regression coefficient obtained.In making a hypothesis decision, you can compare the probability value to α 0.05.Hypothesis testing consists of the coefficience of determinations, f testing and t testing The coefficience of determination in essence is to estimate the kind of abilitys for explain the type of dependence variables.The Adjusted R-Square value which is almost one means the ability of the independence variables at preparing close again all the information obtained estimate the dependent type.The coefficience of determinations abble to be reviewed at table 4.9: Table 3 Coefficient of Determination R-square or the coefficience determination show contribution independence variables to dependence variable.The result is 0.863902, thus indicating show contribution independence variables to dependence variables is 86.3902%.The rest 13.6098% are influencing from another factors beside the regression model.

Simultaneous Significance Test (F Test)
This testing goals for decide whether alls independence or dependent variables are includeds the regression has a significant effect at the bound variable at the same time (Ghozali, 2018).If F amount are greaters than F table so all independence variables jointly affect the dependence variable.While testing with a probability value, namely if probabilitys amount <0.05 so the model is accept.The following is a table the F testing:

Table 4 F Test Results
From on table 4 above, can be understood F-count value are 9.068030 with a probabilitys 0.000.The probabilitys amount <0.05, which means there is a concurrent effect is significant.

Hypothesis Test Results (t Test)
T testing are use for decide how much of a liberating impact it is variables individually at the dependent variable (Ghozali, 2018) From on the statistical test acquisition at table 5 above, the hypothesis abble interpreted as follows: 1.The first hypothesis (H1) is thats sales growth have a positively immpact on tax avoidance From acquisition regression observation testing above, the t value is -2.711651 and the significance level is 0.0110 (p < 0.05) with a regression coefficient value of -1.121108, so concluded thats sales growth affects tax avoidance in a negative direction.So that the first hypothesis (H1) is rejected.2. The second hypothesis (H2) is thats the independence committee have a negative immpact at tax avoidance.From gain regressions analyzation testing above, the t amount 0.479381 and the significance level is 0.6351 (p> 0.05) with a regression coefficient value of 1.657199, so conclud that's independence committee has no impact tax avoidance.So that this hypothesis (H2) are rejection.3. The third hypothesis (H3) is thats the audit committee have a negative immpact at tax avoidance.
From acquisition regressions analyzation testing above, the t amount are -1.145616 and the significance level is 0.2610 (p> 0.05) with a regression coefficient value of -6.458386, so concluded thats the audit committee have no immpact at tax avoidance.So this hypothesis (H3) are rejecti=ion.4. The fourth hypothesis (H4) is thats institutionals ownership have negatively affect at tax avoidance.From acquisition of the regression analysis testing above, the t value is -0.819804 and the significance level is 0.4188 (p> 0.05) with a regression coefficient value of -4.246277, so conclude thats institutionals ownership have no immpact at tax avoidance.So that the fourth hypothesis (H4) are rejected.5.The fifth hypothesis (H5) is that company size strengthens the immpact sales growth at tax avoidance.From acquisition regression analysis test above, the t value is -0.463083 and the significance level is 0.0089 (p < 0.05) with a regression coefficient amount 0.038405, so conclude that's company size moderates (strengthens) the immpact trade developments tax avoidance.And the fifth hypothesis (H5) are accepted.6.The sixth hypothesis (H6) is that company size reduce the impact of the independence committee on tax evasion.From that gain regression analysis testing above, the t value is 2.797459 and the significance level is 0.6466 (p> 0.05) with regression coefficience amount -0.057820, it can be conclude thast industry size does nots moderated (weaken) the impact trade developments at tax avoidance.At sixth hypothesis (H6) are accepted.7. The sixth hypothesis (H7) is that company size reduce the impact of audit commissions on tax avoidance.From that gain regression analysis test above, the t values are 1.149127 also the significant level are 0.25966 (p> 0.05) with a regression coefficience amount -0.217226, it can be conclude that's industry size does not moderated (weaken) the immpact the audit executor at tax avoidance.So that the seventh hypothesis (H7) is accepted.8.The eighth hypothesis (H8) is that company size weakens the impact the institution has on tax avoidance, obtained a t amount 0.823440 also a significance level of 0.4168 (p <0.05) with a regressions coefficience amount 0.151070, it can be concludeds that's industry size does not moderated (weaken) the immpact institutional ownership at tax avoidance.At the eighth hypothesis (H8) are accepted.

Effect of Sales Growth on Tax Avoidance
The partial testing gain (t test) at this study showing thats the t value is -2.711651 and the significance level is 0.0110 (p < 0.05) with a regression coefficient value of -1.121108, so concluded thats trade developments affects tax avoidance in a negative direction.So that the first hypothesis (H1) are rejection.The gain is in line by studies (Sabita & Mildawati, 2018;Irawati et al., 2020;Isnaini & Wahyuningtyas, 2022;Hidayat, 2018;Rahmah, 2023).The negative direction means that it shows the opposite direction between the value of trade developments and tax avoidance, abble to interpreted thats an increase in sales growth will decrease tax avoidance activities.This is due to several things.Good sales growth can attract more attention from the authorities and the media.Industry included at IDX tend to be more under the spotlight, so they tend to avoid the risks associated with violating tax regulations.When companies experience significant sales growth, they have a greater focus on core business activities and managing complex operations.In situations like this, tax avoidance may not be a top priority, and companies are more likely to comply with applicable tax rules.

The Effect of Independent Board of Commissioners on Tax Avoidance
The partial test results (t test) in this studies showing that the t amount is 0.479381 and the significant stage is 0.6351 (p> 0.05) with a regression coefficient value of 1.657199, so the independence board commite have no immpact at tax avoidance.So that the second hypothesis (H2) are rejection.This gain in line with studies (Stefani & Paramita, 2022;Purbowati, 2021;Hilmi et al., 2022;Rospitasari & Oktaviani, 2021;Utami, 2023;Doho & Santoso, 2020).The independence board commite have no impact at tax avoidance.This is because the independence board commite has a supervisory and advisory role, but has limitations in accessing information and influencing company decisions related to taxation.Tax avoidance practices often involve complex corporate structures and technical issues that may only be known by executive management.

Effect of Audit Committee on Tax Avoidance
The partial test gain (t test) at this studies showing the t value is -1.145616 and the significance level is 0.2610 (p> 0.05) by a regression coefficient amount -6.458386, so concluded thats the audit committee have no immpact at tax avoidance.So this hypothesis (H3) are rejection.This gain same with studies (Purbowati, 2021;Suryani, 2020;Utami, 2023;Pratomo & Rana, 2021;Dewi, 2019;Ardianti, 2019).Thus the results of this study indicate thats the tendention of industry to carry out aggressive tax avoidance are not from the number audit commition but of quality and independence of the audit committee itself to analyze whether the company is doing tax avoidance.This conclud, in fact, the number of audit commition are not have immpact in making decisions relateds at corporate tax policy at Indonesia.

The Effect of Institutional Ownership on Tax Avoidance
The partial test gain (t test) in this study indicate that the t value is -0.819804 and the significance level is 0.4188 (p> 0.05) with a regression coefficient value of -4.246277, it can be concluded that institutional ownership has no effect on tax avoidance.So that the fourth hypothesis (H4) is rejected.These results are in line with research conducted by (Su'un, 2018;Siregar et al., 2022;Ashari et al., 2020;Sari et al., 2020;Utami, 2023;Alya, 2021;Fitria, 2018).Although it has previously been explained that if you have a high level of institutional ownership, the tendency of an institution to control the company will be large, but in fact after testing, this cannot guarantee that an institution can influence the company to carry out tax avoidance, because the control of the company's operational activities is largely held by management.The size of the institutional ownership structure has no impact on the size of corporate tax avoidance.

International Journal of Social Service and Research
Yuliana Resca, Yanuar Ramadhan

IJSSR Page 2247
The results of the Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA) test in this study indicate that the interaction between company size and sales growth has a probability value of 0.0089 < α 0.05, so H0 is accepted and means that company size is able to moderate (strengthen) sales growth on tax avoidance.These results are in line with research conducted by (Ananto, 2021).The existence of company size can be seen from the company's total assets owned, stock market value, average sales level, and total sales.The bigger the company, the higher the level of sales so that sales growth increases which causes the tax burden paid to be greater, giving rise to tax avoidance practices.

Company Size Able to Moderate the Independent Board of Commissioners on Tax Avoidance
The results of the Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA) test in this study indicate that the interaction between company size and the independent board of commissioners has a probability value of 0.6466> α 0.05, so H0 is rejected and means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of the independent board of commissioners on tax avoidance.These results are in line with research conducted by (Andini et al., 2021;Ratnawati et al., 2019).Large companies have greater resources, so independent directors need to monitor operating performance more effectively and closely so that management can make more careful decisions and avoid tax avoidance.In the end, the more effective the performance of the independent commission, the easier it is to find out whether management decisions are accordance with existing regulations, especially on tax payments.

Company Size Is Able to Moderate the Audit Committee on Tax Avoidance
The results of the Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA) test in this study indicate that the interaction between company size and the audit committee has a probability value of 0.2596> α 0.05, so H0 is rejected and means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of the audit committee on tax avoidance.These results are in line with research conducted by (Hanifah, 2022;Damayanty & Putri, 2021).The audit committee can control or reduce corporate tax avoidance.Company size is one aspect of tax avoidance policy.Large companies usually have more audit committees than smaller companies to help management avoid tax avoidance.

Company Size Is Able to Moderate Institutional Ownership on Tax Avoidance
The results of the Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA) test in this study indicate that the interaction between company size and institutional ownership has a probability value of 0.4168> α 0.05, so H0 is rejected and means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of institutional ownership on tax avoidance.These results are in line with research conducted by (Andini et al., 2022;Ratnawati et al., 2019).The bigger the company, the more capital invested and the faster the company's own money circulates and the rules that must be obeyed, especially regarding tax payments that are fulfilled to maintain the company's image and reputation.Companies that tend to be large, increasingly attract the attention of the government and tax authorities in order to conduct audits related to tax payments by corporations.As a result, the agency will tighten its control over the performance of managers in order to comply with relevant tax regulations and reduce the possibility of corporate risk.

CONCLUSION
Sales growth affects tax avoidance, independent board of commissioners has no effect on tax avoidance, audit committee has no effect on tax avoidance, and institutional ownership has no effect on tax avoidance.The results in this study indicate that the interaction between company size and sales growth means that company size is able to moderate (strengthen) sales growth on tax avoidance, the interaction between company size and the independent board of commissioners means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of the independent board of commissioners on tax avoidance, the interaction between company size and audit committee means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of the audit committee on tax avoidance, the interaction between company size and ownership means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of institutional ownership on tax avoidance.
Sales growth affects tax avoidance, independent board of commissioners has no effect on tax avoidance, audit committee has no effect on tax avoidance, and institutional ownership has no effect on tax avoidance.The results in this study indicate that the interaction between company size and sales growth means that company size is able to moderate (strengthen) sales growth on tax avoidance, the interaction between company size and the independent board of commissioners means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of the independent board of commissioners on tax avoidance, the interaction between company size and audit committee means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of the audit committee on tax avoidance, the interaction between company size and ownership means that company size is unable to moderate (weaken) the effect of institutional ownership on tax avoidance.

Heterocedacity Test Table 2 Heterocedacity Test Results
From the test gain,abble for understood there are nothing multicollinearity at this type of regression.Because the correlations coefficience values among the independents variables <0.80.

International Journal of Social Service and Research
. The acceptable characteristics and rejected of the hypothesis if amount t count> t table indicates a significant effect.Meanwhile, if amount t count < t table meaning that's nothing influence.Based on the significance value, there are criteria, namelys if the significant Yuliana Resca, Yanuar Ramadhan IJSSR Page 2245number is > 0.05 then the hypothesis are rejection which means the independence variables not have an impact at the dependence variables, whereas if significant result is <0.05 then the hypothesis are allowed which means the independence variables have no effect to dependence variables.Variables are not independent.