Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Vol. 03, No. 09, September 2023

e-ISSN: 2807-8691 | p-ISSN: 2807-839X

2241

The Effect of Sales Growth and Corporate Governance on

Tax Avoidance with Company Size as a Moderating

Variable

Yuliana Resca

, Yanuar Ramadhan

1,2

Universitas Esa Unggul, Indonesia

*e-mail: [email protected]ul.ac.id

[email protected]

Article Information

ABSTRACT

Keywords

• The goals at this study is for decide impact sales growth,

independent board of commissioners, the executor of the

audit, also belongs to the institution at tax avoidance where

company size is moderated. This studies design are

quantitative. This energy uses the energy (mining) sector

through purposive sampling. Researchers used a

documentation strategy to obtain data from the 2019-2022

annual reports of industrial businesses. How to analyze data

at this studies uses descriptive statistics, classical assumption

tests also hypothesis test by utilizing the support of Microsoft

Excel software and using statistical testing tools. Trade

developments had an effect tax avoidance, while

commissioner of independence, executor of audit, also

institutional ownership have nothing impact tax avoidance.

The acquisition in this research indicate that’s company size

are able for moderate trade developments tax avoidance,

company size are not abled for moderates the impact of

independence committee, audit committee, also institutional

ownership at tax avoidance. The acquisition at this research

can serve as a basis for further study at sector of tax avoidance

and corporate governance. These findings may trigger the

development of new theories or enrich existing theories in

relation to how certain factors influence corporate behavior

regarding taxes. In this research, there are 1 figure, 5 tables

with a total number of references of 32.

Sales Growth; Tax Avoidance;

Corporate Governance; Company

Size

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

IJSSR Page 2242

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.

RESULTS

Normality Test

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

Series: Standardized Residuals

Sample 2019 2022

Observations 52

Mea n 0.000000

Median -0.000553

Maximum 0.091003

Minimum -0.112702

Std. Dev. 0.036474

Skewness -0.041659

Kurtosis 4.119557

Jarque-Bera 2.730756

Probability 0.255284

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.

Multicollinearity Test

Table 1

Multicollinearity Test Results

0.104106

-0.12728

-0.26156

0.227038

0.104106

-0.14531

0.04655

0.180942

-0.12728

-0.14531

-0.09862

0.407979

-0.26156

0.04655

-0.09862

-0.39629

0.227038

0.180942

0.407979

-0.39629

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.

Heterocedacity Test

Table 2

Heterocedacity Test Results

Variable

Coefficie

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.

1.981183

4.487834

0.441456

0.6620

0.161203

0.189357

-0.851315

0.4013

0.427930

1.583295

0.270278

0.7888

1.513525

2.581981

-0.586187

0.5621

0.672371

2.372285

-0.283427

0.7788

0.067876

0.153165

-0.443155

0.6608

X1_Z

0.004894

0.006288

0.778395

0.4424

X2_Z

0.014620

0.057185

-0.255656

0.8000

X3_Z

0.050827

0.086579

0.587055

0.5616

X4_Z

0.025744

0.084026

0.306376

0.7614

IJSSR Page 2244

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). 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

International Journal of Social Service and Research

Yuliana Resca, Yanuar Ramadhan

IJSSR Page 2245

number 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.

Table 5

Hypothesis Test Results (t Test)

Variable

Coefficient

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.

12.79050

9.798703

1.305326

0.2017

-1.121108

0.413441

-2.711651

0.0110

1.657199

3.456955

0.479381

0.6351

-6.458386

5.637478

-1.145616

0.2610

-4.246277

5.179628

-0.819804

0.4188

-0.430631

0.334419

-1.287697

0.2077

X1_Z

0.038405

0.013729

2.797459

0.0089

X2_Z

-0.057820

0.124858

-0.463083

0.6466

X3_Z

0.217226

0.189036

1.149127

0.2596

X4_Z

0.151070

0.183462

0.823440

0.4168

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

IJSSR Page 2246

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

Company Size Is Able to Moderate Sales Growth on 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 in 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

 
IJSSR Page 2248 
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. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
Alya, Y. (2021). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Institusional, Leverage, Dan Ukuran Perusahaan Terhadap Tax 
Avoidance. Jurnal Paradigma Akuntansi, 3(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.24912/jpa.v3i1.11398  
Ananto, M. R. (2021). Determinan  Penghindaran Pajak Dengan Ukuran Perusahaan Sebagai Variabel 
Moderasi. Universitas Islam Indonesia.  
Andini, R., Andika, A. D., & Pranaditya, A. (2021). Analisa Pengaruh Kepemilikan Institusional, Proporsi 
Dewan Komisaris Independen, dan Profitabilitas terhadap Penghindaran Pajak Dengan Ukuran 
Perusahaan  sebagai  Variabel  Moderating  (Studi  Empiris pada  Industri  Barang Konsumsi  yang 
Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2015-2019). Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Pajak, 22(2), 511. 
https://doi.org/10.29040/jap.v22i2.3193.  
Ardianti,  P.  N.  H.  (2019).  Profitabilitas,  leverage,  dan  komite  audit  pada  tax  avoidance.  E-Jurnal 
Akuntansi Universitas Udayana, 26(3), 2020-2040. 
Ashari, M. A., Simorangkir, P., & Masripah, M. (2020). Pengaruh pertumbuhan penjualan, kepemilikan 
institusional dan kepemilikan manajerial terhadap penghindaran pajak  (tax avoidance). Jurnal 
Syntax Transformation, 1(8), 488-498. 
Damayanty, P., & Putri, T. (2021). The Effect of Corporate Governance on Tax Avoidance by Company 
Size  as  The  Moderating  Variable.European  Union  Digital  Library. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/eai.14-9-2020.2304404.  
Dewi,  N.  M.  (2019).  Pengaruh  Kepemilikan  Institusional,  Dewan  Komisaris  Independen  dan  Komite 
Audit Terhadap Penghindaran Pajak (Tax Avoidance) Pada Perusahaan Perbankan Yang Terdaftar 
Di  Bursa  Efek  Indonesia  Periode  2012-2016.  MAKSIMUM:  Media  Akuntansi  Universitas 
Muhammadiyah  Semarang,  9(1),  40-51. 
https://jurnal.unimus.ac.id/index.php/MAX/article/view/5264  
Doho, S. Z., & Santoso, E. B. (2020). Pengaruh karakteristik ceo, komisaris independen, dan kualitas audit 
terhadap penghindaran pajak. Media Akuntansi dan Perpajakan Indonesia, 1(2), 169-184. 
Fadilah,  St.  N.,  Rachmawati,  L.,  &  Dimyati,  M.  D.  (2021).  Pengaruh  Komite  Audit,  Dewan  Komisaris 
Independen  dan Intensitas Modal terhadap Penghindaran Pajak di Perusahaan Keuangan. JIAI 
(Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Indonesia), Vol 6 No 2. 
Faisal,  Abdu.  (2022).  Kantor  pajak  jakut  ungkap  penggelapan  pajak  pt  pr  senilai  rp  292  miliar. 
https://www.antaranews.com/berita/3306311/kantor-pajak-jakut-ungkap-penggelapan-pajak-
pt-pr-senilai-rp292-miliar. Accessed on August 27, 2023. 
Fauzan,  Arsanti,  M.D.,  &  Fatchan,  I.N.  (2021).  The  Effect  of  Financial  Distress,  Good  Corporate 
Governance, and Institutional Ownership on Tax Avoidance (Empirical Study of Manufacturing 
(Empirical  Study  of  Manufacturing  Companies  in  the  Consumer  Goods  Companies  in  the 
Consumer Goods Industry Sector Listed on the Indonesia Industry Sector Listed on the Indonesia. 
JURNAL  Riset  Akuntansi  Dan  Keuangan  Indonesia,  6(2). 
https://journals.ums.ac.id/index.php/reaksi/article/view/16126  
Fauzia,  Mutia.  (2021).  Apa  Itu  Pandora  Papers  yang  Ungkap  Skandal  Pajak  Orang  Kaya  Dunia?. 
https://money.kompas.com/read/2021/10/04/131831126/apa-itu-pandora-papers-yang-
ungkap-skandal-pajak-orang-kaya-dunia?page=all. Accessed on August 27, 2023. 
Fitria, G. N. (2018). Pengaruh kepemilikan institusional, komisaris independen, karakter eksekutif dan 
size terhadap tax avoidance. Jurnal Profita: Komunikasi Ilmiah Akuntansi Dan Perpajakan, 11(3), 
94-104.  
Ghozali, Imam. (2018). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Progaram IBM SPSS 25. Semarang: Badan 
Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro. 
Hanifah,  I.  N.  (2022).  Corporate  Governance  dan  Likuiditas  terhadap  Tax  Avoidance :  Ukuran 
Perusahaan sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Jurnal Literasi Akuntansi.  

International Journal of Social Service and Research 
Yuliana Resca, Yanuar Ramadhan 
 
IJSSR Page 2249 
Heryana, T, Septiani., D. H., & Nugraha. (2022). Directors Diversity, Business Strategy, Sales Growth on 
Tax  Avoidance.  Jurnal  ASET  (Akuntansi  Riset),  14(2),  187–206. 
https://doi.org/10.17509/jaset.v14i1.44435.  
Hilmi, M. F., Amalia,  S. N.,  Amry, Z., &  Setiawati, S.  (2022).  Pengaruh  Dewan Komisaris Independen, 
Komite  Audit, Leverage dan  Intensitas Modal  Terhadap  Penghindaran  Pajak  Pada  Perusahaan 
Manufaktur  Yang  Terdaftar  Di  Bursa  Efek  Indonesia  Tahun  2017.  Owner:  Riset  dan  Jurnal 
Akuntansi, 6(4), 3533-3540. http://owner.polgan.ac.id/index.php/owner/article/view/1178  
Irawati, W., Akbar, Z., Wulandari, R., & Barli, H. (2020). Analisis Profitabilitas, Leverage, Pertumbuhan 
Penjualan  Dan  Kepemilikan  Keluarga  Terhadap  Penghindaran  Pajak.  JAK  (Jurnal  Akuntansi) 
Kajian  Ilmiah  Akuntansi,  7(2),  190-199.  https://e-
jurnal.lppmunsera.org/index.php/Akuntansi/article/view/2307  
Isnaini, A. M., & Wahyuningtyas, E. T. (2022). Identifikasi leverage, Sales Growth, Profitabilitas, Capital 
Intensity,  dan  Ukuran  Perusahaan  Terhadap  Penghindaran  Pajak.  Jurnal  Akuntansi  AKUNESA, 
10(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.55587/jla.v2i1.5  
Maharani, F. S., & Baroroh, N. (2019). The Effects of Leverage, Executive Characters, and Institutional 
Ownership to Tax Avoidance With Political Connection as Moderation. Jurnal Analisis Akuntansi, 
8(2), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v8i2.30039.  
Pratomo,  D.,  &  Rana,  R.  A.  (2021).  Pengaruh  Kepemilikan  Institusional,  Komissaris  Independen  dan 
Komite Audit terhadap Tax Avoidance. JAK (Jurnal Akuntansi) Kajian Ilmiah Akuntansi, 8(1), 91–
103. https://doi.org/10.30656/jak.v8i1.2487.  
Purbowati, R. (2021). Pengaruh Good Corporate Governance terhadap Tax Avoidance (Penghindaran 
Pajak).  Jurnal  Riset  Akuntansi  Dan  Keuangan  Dewantara. 
https://ejournal.stiedewantara.ac.id/index.php/JAD/article/view/755  
Rahmah,  R.  (2023).  Pengaruh  Pertumbuhan  Penjualan,  Intensitas  Aset  Tetap,  Intensitas  Modal, 
Leverage,  Dan  Profitabilitas  Terhadap  Penghindaran  Pajak  (Tax  Avoidance).  Restitusi:  Jurnal 
Riset  Perpajakan,  2(01),  25-32. 
https://jurnal.fe.umi.ac.id/index.php/RESTITUSI/article/view/595  
Ratnawati,  V.,  Wahyunir,  N.,  &  Abduh,  A.  (2019).  The  Effect  of  Institutional  Ownership,  Board  of 
Commissioners,  Audit  Committee  on  Tax  Aggressiveness;  Firm  Size  as  a  Moderating Variable. 
International  Journal  of  Business  and  Economy,  1(2),  103-114. 
https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijbec/article/view/7829  
Rospitasari,  N.,  &  Oktaviani,  R.  (2021).  Analisa  Pengaruh  Komisaris  Independen,  Komite  Audit  Dan 
Kualitas Audit Terhadap Penghindaran Pajak. Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, Ekonomi, & Akuntansi 
(MEA), 5(3), 3087-3099. https://doi.org/10.31955/mea.v5i3.1714  
Sabita, J. H., & Mildawati, T. (2018). Pengaruh Karakter Eksekutif, Ukuran Perusahaan, Leverage, Sales 
Growth Terhadap Penghindaran Pajak. Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Akuntansi (JIRA), 7(11). 
Sari, N., Luthan, E., & Syafriyeni, N. (2020). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Leverage, Komisaris Independen, 
Kepemilikan  Institusional,  dan  Ukuran  Perusahaan  terhadap  Penghindaran  Pajak  pada 
Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia pada Tahun 2014-2018. Jurnal 
Ilmiah  Universitas  Batanghari  Jambi,  20(2). 
http://ji.unbari.ac.id/index.php/ilmiah/article/view/913  
Siregar, N., Rahman, A., & Aryathama, H. G. (2022). Pengaruh Manajemen Laba, Kualitas Audit, Komite. 
Audit, Komisaris Independen Dan Kepemilikan Institusional Terhadap Penghindaran Pajak. Jurnal 
Ilmu Siber (JIS), 1(1), 15-23. https://jurnal.unsia.ac.id/index.php/jis/article/view/53  
Stefani, M., & Paramitha, M. (2022). Pengaruh Sustainability Reporting, Corporate Social Responsibility, 
Leverage dan Komisaris Independen Terhadap Penghindaran Pajak. Jurnal Locus Penelitian dan 
Pengabdian, 1(4), 226-246. 
Sugianto,  Danang.  (2019).  Mengenal  soal  Penghindaran  Pajak  yang  Dituduhkan  ke  Adaro. 
https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-4612708/mengenal-soal-penghindaran-
pajak-yang-dituduhkan-ke-adaro. Accessed on August 27, 2023. 
Suryani, S. (2020). Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Return On  Asset, Debt To  Asset Ratio dan Komite 
Audit  terhadap  Penghindaran  Pajak.  Jurnal  Online  Insan  Akuntan,  5(1),  83-98. 
https://doi.org/10.51211/joia.v5i1.1322  

IJSSR Page 2250

Utami, A. A. Y. (2023). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Institusional, Kepemilikan Manajerial, Ukuran Direksi,

Proporsi Dewan Komisaris Independen dan Komite Audit Terhadap Penghindaran Pajak. JIIP-

Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 6(6), 4288-4302. https://doi.org/10.54371/jiip.v6i6.2156

(2023)

First publication right:

Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health (AJESH)

This article is licensed under: