Corresponding Author: Zahid
Zidan Qiam Arrahman
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Taxes are state income whose value is too significant
to be used for the interests of the government and the welfare of society,
which is why the state makes tax laws. This tax law aims to obtain as much
state income from taxes as possible. Tax payments are a form of state
obligation and the participation of taxpayers directly and jointly in carrying
out tax obligations to finance the state and national development (Aji et al., 2022). The existence of gaps in the tax law makes taxpayers
often practice tax avoidance. In this case, the practice does not violate the
contents of the law but does not support the purpose of establishing the tax
law (Hardeck et al., 2021). There are many efforts to prevent tax avoidance
behavior that can handle state revenues in the tax sector. Tax avoidance is
part of tax planning, which aims to reduce tax payments. Tax avoidance is tax
savings achieved using legally implemented tax regulations to reduce tax
liabilities (Tarmidi et al., 2020). Therefore, it is necessary to implement excellent or
Good Corporate Governance (GCG) (Yuliana et al., 2023).
Good corporate governance (GCG) is a system that
regulates and controls companies and creates added value for all stakeholders (Lindawati, 2020). Corporate governance is a concept based on agency
theory; it is hoped that it can function as a tool to provide investors with
confidence that they will receive a return on the funds they have invested (Omware et al., 2020). Companies with good governance will certainly not
use loopholes in tax regulations to reduce their tax burden (Yusuf et al., 2022).
Profitability is one measurement of a company's
performance; a company's profitability shows a company's ability to generate
profits during a specific period at a certain level of sales, assets, and share
capital (Antoro et al., 2020). A company's profitability can be assessed in various
ways depending on the profits and assets, or capital, that will be compared
with each other. A good company must be able to control financial and
non-financial potential to increase company value for the company's long-term
existence. Companies that can earn large profits can be said to be successful
or have good financial performance (Dirman, 2020). The tax will depend on the profits obtained by the
company, and the tax will reduce the share of profits distributed to the owners
(Ilyas & Hertati,
2022).
Capital intensity measures the extent to which a
company's ability to generate sales is based on the effectiveness of using
total assets. The effectiveness of using fixed assets can be seen from fixed
asset purchasing activities (Lismiyati &
Herliansyah, 2021). Fixed asset purchase activities give rise to
depreciation expenses, which can reduce the tax burden payable. Activities to
reduce the tax burden owed indicate that the company is tax-aggressive. The
higher the capital intensity value, the lower the company's ETR value. This
means that the tax aggressiveness is higher (Rahmawati &
Mildawati, 2019).
The manufacturing industry in Indonesia is also not
accessible from the issue of tax avoidance. As in the case of PT Adaro Energy
in 2019, transfer pricing was carried out by transferring revenues and profits
to its subsidiary in Singapore so that it was able to reduce the tax burden
that was to be paid to the Indonesian government. This is being tried by
selling coal at a low price to industrial subsidiaries so that it can be sold
again at a higher price. PT Adaro Energy is indicated to reduce tax costs by 14
million US dollars per year from the four prices that should be paid to the
Indonesian government of 125 million US dollars.
Based on research (Tanko, 2020) he discusses The Moderating Effect of Profitability
on the Relationship Between Ownership Structure and Corporate Tax Avoidance in
Nigerian Listed Consumer Goods Firms. This research reveals a negative and
insignificant relationship between institutional ownership and corporate tax
avoidance. Based on research by (Kalbuana et al., 2020), discussing the influence of capital intensity, firm
size, and leverage on tax avoidance on companies registered in the Jakarta
Islamic Index (JII) for the period 2015�2019, The results of the analysis show
that capital intensity has a positive effect on tax avoidance, leverage hurts
tax avoidance, and company size does not affect tax avoidance.
Based on the description above, this research
discusses the influence of corporate governance, profitability, and capital
intensity on tax avoidance in manufacturing companies registered with BEI in
2021�2023.
METHOD
This research is quantitative, based on phenomena that can be classified
and used to examine the population or sample used in the research. The
population in this study consists of manufacturing companies listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) during the period 2021-2023. A sample of these
companies was selected for detailed analysis using purposive sampling, which
involves selecting companies based on specific criteria relevant to the
research objectives. The data collection method involves secondary data
collection from the financial reports of these manufacturing companies listed
on the IDX from 2021 to 2023. The financial data include metrics related to
corporate governance, profitability, and capital intensity, which are then
analyzed to assess their impact on tax avoidance. The criteria for including
companies in the sample are as follows: companies must be listed on the IDX
during the specified period, have complete financial reports available for the
years 2021 to 2023, and their financial reports must include data on corporate
governance, profitability, and capital intensity.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This research focuses on
manufacturing companies listed on the IDX in the 2021�2023 time period. The
variables used are corporate governance (audit quality and audit committee),
profitability and capital intensity as independent variables, and tax avoidance
as the dependent variable. The names of the companies used as samples in this
study are as follows:
Table 1. Company Name
|
No
|
Company Name
|
Code
|
|
1
|
Aneka Gas
Industri Tbk
|
AGII
|
|
2
|
Tri Banyan
Tirta Tbk
|
ALTO
|
|
3
|
Japfa
Comfeed Indonesia Tbk
|
JPFA
|
|
4
|
Indofarma
Tbk
|
INAF
|
|
5
|
Astra
International Tbk
|
ASII
|
|
6
|
Gudang
Garam Tbk
|
GGRM
|
|
7
|
Indal
Aluminium Industry Tbk
|
INAI
|
|
8
|
Mandom Indonesia
Tbk
|
TCID
|
|
9
|
Ultra Jaya
Milk Industry & Trading Company Tbk
|
ULTJ
|
|
10
|
Unilever
Indonesia Tbk
|
UNVR
|
|
11
|
Wijaya
Karya Beton Tbk
|
WTON
|
|
12
|
Kimia Farma
Tbk
|
KAEF
|
|
13
|
Alkindo
Naratama Tbk
|
ALDO
|
|
14
|
Prasidha
Aneka Niaga Tbk
|
PSDN
|
|
15
|
Industri
Jamu dan Farmasi Sido Muncul Tbk
|
SIDO
|
|
16
|
Sekar Laut
Tbk
|
SKLT
|
|
17
|
Semen
Baturaja (Persero) Tbk
|
SMBR
|
|
18
|
Indo
Acidatama Tbk
|
SRSN
|
|
19
|
Sunson
Textile Manufacturer Tbk
|
SSTM
|
|
20
|
Siantar Top
Tbk
|
STTP
|
|
21
|
Indocement
Tunggal Prakarsa Tbk
|
INTP
|
|
22
|
Kedawung
Setia Industrial Tbk
|
KDSI
|
|
23
|
Kino
Indonesia Tbk
|
KINO
|
|
24
|
Kalbe Farma
Tbk
|
KLBF
|
|
25
|
Lion Metal
Works Tbk
|
LION
|
|
26
|
Langgeng
Makmur Industri Tbk
|
LMPI
|
|
27
|
Mulia
Industrindo Tbk
|
MLIA
|
|
28
|
Mayora
Indah Tbk
|
MYOR
|
|
29
|
Asia
Pacific Investama Tbk
|
MYTX
|
|
30
|
Panasia
Indo Resources Tbk
|
HDTX
|
|
31
|
Impack
Pratama Industri Tbk
|
IMPC
|
|
32
|
Duta
Pertiwi Nusantara Tbk
|
DPNS
|
|
33
|
Chitose
Internasional Tbk
|
CINT
|
|
34
|
Charoen
Pokphand Indonesia Tbk
|
CPIN
|
|
35
|
Kedaung
Indah Can Tbk
|
KICI
|
|
36
|
Selamat
Sempurna Tbk
|
SMSM
|
|
37
|
Trias
Sentosa Tbk
|
TRST
|
Classical Assumption
Normality test
The normality test in this research is as follows:
Table 2. Normality test
|
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
|
|
|
|
Unstandardiz ed Residual
|
|
N
|
|
|
111
|
|
Normal Parameters a,b
|
Mean
|
|
.0000000
|
|
Std. Deviation
|
|
29249511
|
|
Most Extreme Differences
|
Absolute
|
|
.100
|
|
Positive
|
|
.063
|
|
Negative
|
|
-.100
|
|
Test Statistic
|
|
|
.100
|
|
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
|
|
|
.008 c
|
|
Monte Carlo Sig. (2-
|
Sig.
|
|
197 d
|
|
tailed)
|
99% Confidence Interval
|
Lower Bound
|
.186
|
|
|
Upper Bound
|
.207
|
|
a.
Test distribution is Normal
|
|
b.
Calculated from data
|
|
c.
Liliefors Significance Correction
|
|
d.
Based on 1000 sampled tables with starting seed 1314643744
|
Based on the table
above, the significance value (2-tailed) is 0.197, which is greater than the
specified significance level (0.05 or α). This decision shows insufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the residual data are normally
distributed. In other words, because the p-value is greater than the chosen
significance level, we can conclude that the residual data tend to follow a
normal distribution.
Multicollinearity Test
The multicollinearity test in this study is as follows:
Table 3.
Multicollinearity Test
|
Coefficients
|
|
Unstandardized
|
Coefficients
|
Standardized Coefficients
|
|
|
Collinearity
|
Statistics
|
|
Model
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
t
|
Sig.
|
Tolerance
|
VIF
|
|
1 (Constant)
|
.519
|
.087
|
|
5.928
|
.000
|
|
|
|
Kualitas
Audit
|
.034
|
.061
|
.053
|
.567
|
.572
|
941
|
1.063
|
|
Komite Audit
|
.115
|
.050
|
.214
|
2.291
|
.024
|
956
|
1.046
|
|
Profitability
|
-.106
|
105
|
-.094
|
-1.009
|
.315
|
.969
|
1.032
|
|
Capital
Intensity
|
.056
|
.020
|
.258
|
2.792
|
.006
|
979
|
1.021
|
|
a.
Dependent Variable : Penghindaran Pajak
|
According to the table
above, the tolerance value calculation shows that no independent variable has a
tolerance value of less than 0.10. Specifically, the tolerance value for audit
quality is 0.941, the audit committee is 0.956, profitability is 0.969, and
capital intensity is 0.979. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value for each
independent variable on audit quality is 1.063; audit committee is 1.046;
profitability is 1.032; and capital intensity is 1.021, which does not exceed
the critical limit 10. The VIF calculation decision also confirms this finding.
Heteroskedasticity Test
The heteroscedasticity test in this study is as follows:
Figure 1. Scatterplot
Test
The plot spreads
randomly above and below zero on the Studentized Residual Regression axis, as
shown in the scatterplots in the image above. This finding indicates no
particular pattern in the residual distribution, so there are no symptoms of
heteroscedasticity in the regression model. More specifically, the variation of
the residuals is not correlated with the predicted value, indicating that
homoscedasticity is satisfied in this multiple linear regression analysis. This
strengthens the reliability of estimates and the interpretation of regression
analysis results.
Table 4.
Heteroscedasticity Test
|
Coefficients
|
|
Model
|
Unstandardized
|
Coefficients
|
Standardized Coefficients
|
t
|
Sig.
|
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
|
1 (Constant)
|
.519
|
.087
|
|
5.928
|
.000
|
|
Kualitas
Audit
|
.034
|
.061
|
.053
|
.567
|
.572
|
|
Komite Audit
|
.115
|
.050
|
.214
|
2.291
|
.024
|
|
Profitabilitas
|
-.106
|
105
|
-.094
|
-1.009
|
.315
|
|
Capital
Intensity
|
.056
|
.020
|
.258
|
2.792
|
.006
|
|
a.
Dependent Variable : Penghindaran Pajak
|
Based on the results of
the heteroscedasticity test in the table above, the results obtained for audit
quality were 0.032, audit committee d = 0.024, and capital intensity was 0.06,
meaning heteroscedasticity occurred because it was lower than 0.05, while
profitability was 0.315, meaning it did not occur. Heteroscedasticity because
it is more than 0.05.
Autocorrelation Test
The autocorrelation test in this study is as follows:
Table 5. Autocorrelation
Test
|
Model Summary
|
|
Model
|
R
|
R Square
|
Adjusted R Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
Durbin- Watson
|
|
1
|
340� a
|
.116
|
.082
|
.298
|
875
|
|
a. Predictors: (Constant),
Capital Intensity, Komite Audit, Profitability, Kualitas Audit
|
|
b. Dependent Variable :
Penghindaran Pajak
|
Based on the table
above, the Durbin Watson value is 0.875, the comparison uses a significance
value of 5%, the sample size is 111 (n), and the number of independent
variables is 4 (k = 4), so in the Durbin Watson table you will get a du value
of 1.7657. Because the DW value of 0.875 is lower than the upper limit (du) of
1.7657 and lower than 4-1.7657 (2.2343), it can be concluded that there is
autocorrelation.
Hypothesis Testing
T Test
The T-test in this research is as follows:
Table 6. T Test
|
Coefficientsa
|
|
Model
|
Unstandardized
|
Coefficients
|
Standardized Coefficients
|
t
|
Sig.
|
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
|
1 (Constant)
|
.519
|
.087
|
|
5.928
|
.000
|
|
Kualitas
Audit
|
.034
|
.061
|
.053
|
.567
|
.572
|
|
Komite Audit
|
.115
|
.050
|
.214
|
2.291
|
.024
|
|
Profitabilitas
|
-.106
|
105
|
-.094
|
-1.009
|
.315
|
|
Capital
Intensity
|
.056
|
.020
|
.258
|
2.792
|
.006
|
|
a.
Dependent Variable : Penghindaran Pajak
|
The coefficient of the
partial regression value of the audit quality variable (X1) has a t value of
0.567 with a significance of (0.572>0.05) and a t table of 1.983. So, it can
be concluded that the value of tcount<ttable (0.567<1.983) proves that
the audit quality variable (X1) does not affect tax avoidance (Y).
The coefficient of the
partial regression value of the audit committee variable (X2) has a t value of
2.291 with a significance of (0.024 <0.05) and a t table of 1.983. So, it
can be concluded that the value of tcount>ttable (2.291>1.983) proves
that the audit committee variable (X2) affects tax avoidance (Y).
The coefficient of the
partial regression value of the profitability variable (X3) has a t value of
1.209 with a significance of (0.035 <0.05) and a t table of 1.983. So, it
can be concluded that the value of tcount>ttable (1.209<1.983) proves that
the profitability variable (X3) does not affect tax avoidance (Y).
The coefficient of the
partial regression value of the capital intensity variable (X4) has a t value
of 2.792 with a significance of 0.006 <0.05 and a t table of 1.983. So, it
can be concluded that the value of tcount>ttable (2.792<1.983), and this
finding proves that the capital intensity variable (X4) affects tax avoidance
(Y).
F Test
The F test in this research is as follows:
Table 7. F Test
|
ANOVAa
|
|
Model
|
Sum of Squares
|
df
|
Mean Square
|
F
|
Sig.
|
|
1 Regression
|
1.231
|
4
|
.308
|
3.467
|
.011 b
|
|
Residual
|
9.411
|
106
|
.089
|
|
|
|
Total
|
10.642
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
a. Dependent Variable :
Penghindaran Pajak
|
|
b. Predictors: (Constant),
Capital Intensity, Komite Audit, Profitability, Kualitas Audit
|
on the table above, the
df value is 100, the significant F value is 0.011, and the Fcount value is
3.467 with an Ftable value of 2.457. In fcount < ftable, Ho is accepted, and
Ha is rejected, while in fcount>ftable, Ho is rejected, and Ha is accepted.
3,467 > 2,457, which means that audit quality, audit committee,
profitability, and capital intensity simultaneously influence tax avoidance.
Determination Coefficient Test (R2)
The coefficient of determination test in this research is
as follows:
Table 8. Determination
Coefficient Test
|
Model Summaryb
|
|
Model
|
R
|
R Square
|
Adjusted R Square
|
Std. Error of the Estimate
|
|
1
|
340� a
|
.116
|
.082
|
.298
|
|
c. Predictors: (Constant),
Capital Intensity, Komite Audit, Profitability, Kualitas Audit
|
Based on the table
above, the Adjusted R Square value is 0.082. This shows that the variables
together influence taxpayer decisions, namely 8.2%, while the remaining 91.8%
is influenced by other variables that were not examined in this research.
The Influence Of Audit Quality
Variables On Tax Avoidance
Based on the research
results, the audit quality variable does not affect tax avoidance for
manufacturing companies listed on the IDX in 2021�2023. This is proven by the
tcount value being lower than the ttable value (0.567<1.983). This
research's results align with Mirda Thalia Khairunnisa and Ade Imam Muslim
(2020) entitled The Influence of Leverage, Liquidity, and Audit Quality on Tax
Avoidance. States that partial leverage and liquidity affect tax avoidance,
while audit quality does not.
Audit quality does not
affect tax avoidance because Indonesia's tax collection system adheres to a
self-assessment system, in this case, income tax, so that the government, in
this case, the Directorate General of Taxes, gives complete trust to taxpayers.
In this case, companies are given full authority to calculate, deposit, and
report taxes owed by applicable tax regulations. This may happen because the
quality of audits issued by non-big four KAPs can provide high transparency and
capability and can compete with the big four KAPs to maintain client reputation
and trust, so audit quality as assessed by the size of the KAP cannot determine
the level of tax avoidance. That is conducted.
The Influence Of Audit Committee
Variables On Tax Avoidance
Based on the research
results, the audit committee variable influences tax avoidance in manufacturing
companies listed on the IDX in the 2021�2023 period. This is proven by the
tcount value being greater than the ttable value (2.291 > 1.983). The results
of this research align with research by Pratomo Rana (2021), which states that simultaneously, the variables
of institutional ownership, independent commissioners, and audit committees
influence tax avoidance.
The audit committee's
influence is because it has duties that must be accountable to a company,
namely carrying out control over the process of preparing financial reports to
avoid acts of fraud that could possibly be carried out by management. Supervisory
duties can also be performed well according to reasonable procedures: corporate
governance or company governance. The audit committee also plays an active role
in deciding policies related to tax burden because tax burden is closely
correlated with tax avoidance. An increase in the number of audit committees in
a company can reduce the ETR value, so tax avoidance practices carried out by
companies are high. The greater the number of audit committees, the more ways
there are to control company finances so that there are no differences in
interests between agents and principals.
The Influence Of Profitability
Variables On Tax Avoidance
Based on the research
results, the profitability variable does not affect tax avoidance for
manufacturing companies listed on the IDX in 2021�2023. This is proven by the
tcount value being lower than the ttable value (1.209<1.983). The results of
this research align with research by (Mardianti Ardini, 2020) States that corporate social responsibility affects tax
avoidance, while profitability, foreign ownership, and capital intensity have
no effect on tax avoidance.
Profitability does not
affect tax avoidance because the higher the level of company profitability, the
higher the company's net profit generated. When the profits are large, the
income tax will increase according to the company's current profits. Companies
that receive profits, in this case, can be assumed not to avoid tax because the
company can manage its own income generation and tax payments.
The Influence Of The Capital
Intensity Variable On Tax Avoidance
Based on the research
results, the capital intensity variable influences tax avoidance in
manufacturing companies listed on the IDX in 2021�2023. This is proven by the
tcount value being more significant than the ttable value (2.792<1.983). The
results of this research align with the research of (Wulandari et al., 2020), States that executive compensation does not affect tax
avoidance. Capital intensity has a significant effect on tax avoidance.
Capital intensity can be
supported because it is a factor that plays a role in avoiding taxes. The fewer
fixed assets a company has, the less the company attempts to avoid taxes. The
company's fixed assets have different economic lives. Almost all fixed assets
will experience a decline, which will become a depreciation expense in the
company's financial statements. However, these depreciation costs can be
deducted from income in corporate tax calculations. The tax level that the
company must pay will be negatively correlated with depreciation costs. With
decreasing taxable profits, companies will have lower taxes payable because
companies that emphasize capital intensity or tend to invest in fixed assets
will have a lower effective tax rate.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that the results of
the study show that audit quality does not have a significant effect on tax
avoidance, as evidenced by the lower t-count value than the t-table (0.567 <
1.983). On the contrary, the variables of the audit committee were proven to
have a significant effect on tax avoidance, with a greater t-count value than
the t-table (2,291 > 1,983). The role of the audit committee in overseeing
the process of preparing financial statements and making policies related to
tax burden is very important in reducing tax avoidance practices. Profitability
did not show a significant effect on tax avoidance, which was indicated by a
lower t-count value than the t-table (1,209 < 1,983). However, capital
intensity has a significant influence on tax avoidance, as evidenced by a
greater t-count value than t-table (2,792 > 1,983).
The study indicates that strict
oversight by audit committees and good management of capital intensity can help
reduce tax avoidance practices in companies. These findings provide guidance
for regulators and corporate management in formulating effective policies and
procedures to reduce tax avoidance risks and improve tax compliance. For
further research, it is recommended to explore other variables that may affect
tax avoidance, as well as expand the scope of the research to other industry
sectors to obtain a more comprehensive picture of tax avoidance practices in
Indonesia.
REFERENCES
Aji, A. S., Setiono, J., & Santoso,
B. (2022). Juridical Review of
the Principles and Systems of Collecting Local Taxes in National Development. International
Journal of Law and Politics Studies, 4(2), 51�58.
Antoro, W., Sanusi, A., & Asih, P. (2020). The effect of
profitability, company size, and company growth on firm value through capital
structure in food and beverage companies on the Indonesia stock exchange
2014-2018 period. International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research
and Engineering (IJASRE), 6(9), 36�43.
Dirman, A. (2020). Financial distress: the impacts of
profitability, liquidity, leverage, firm size, and free cash flow. International
Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 22(1), 17�25.
Hardeck, I., Harden, J. W., & Upton, D. R. (2021).
Consumer reactions to tax avoidance: evidence from the United States and
Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 170, 75�96.
Ilyas, M., & Hertati, L. (2022). Pengaruh Profitabilitas,
Leverage, Struktur Modal Dan Kebijakan Dividen Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Era
Pandemi Covid-19. Jurnal Ilmu Keuangan Dan Perbankan (JIKA), 11(2),
190�205.
Kalbuana, N., Solihin, S., Yohana, Y., & Yanti, D. R.
(2020). The influence of capital intensity, firm size, and leverage on tax
avoidance on companies registered in Jakarta Islamic Index (Jii) period
2015-2019. International Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting
Research (IJEBAR), 4(03).
Lindawati, M. (2020). REVIEW OF GOOD CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
(GCG) APPLICATION IN OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN PT BANK CENTRAL ASIA, Tbk. Dinasti
International Journal of Education Management And Social Science, 1(6),
867�877.
Lismiyati, N., & Herliansyah, Y. (2021). The Effect of
Accounting Conservatism, Capital Intensity, and Independent Commissioners Tax
Avoidance, With Independent Commissioners as Moderating Variables (Empirical
Study on Banking Companies on the IDX 2014-2017). Dinasti International
Journal of Economics, Finance & Accounting, 2(1), 55�70.
Mardianti, I. V., & Ardini, L. (2020). Pengaruh Tanggung
Jawab Sosial Perusahaan, Profitabilitas, Kepemilikan Asing, dan Intensitas
Modal terhadap Penghindaran Pajak. Jurnal Ilmu Dan Riset Akuntansi (JIRA),
9(4).
Omware, I. M., Atheru, G., & Jagongo, A. (2020).
Corporate governance and financial performance of selected commercial banks
listed at Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya. International Academic
Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(5), 75�91.
Pratomo, D., & Rana, R. A. (2021). Pengaruh kepemilikan
institusional, komisaris independen dan komite audit terhadap penghindaran
pajak. JAK (Jurnal Akuntansi) Kajian Ilmiah Akuntansi, 8(1),
91�103.
Rahmawati, V., & Mildawati, T. (2019). Pengaruh Size,
Leverage, Profitability, Dan Capital Intensity Ratio Terhadap Effective Tax
Rate (Etr). Jurnal Ilmu Dan Riset Akuntansi (JIRA), 8(4).
Tanko, U. M. (2020). The moderating effect of profitability
on the relationship between ownership structure and corporate tax avoidance in
Nigeria-listed consumer goods firms. International Journal of Business and
Technopreneurship, 10(2), 153�172.
Tarmidi, D., Sari, P. N., & Handayani, R. (2020). Tax
Avoidance: Impact of Financial and Non-Financial Factors. International
Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences,
10(2), 1�8.
Wulandari, F., Masripah, M., & Widyastuti, N. P. E.
(2020). Identifikasi Kualitas Audit Pada Hubungan Kompensasi Eksekutif Dan
Capital Intensity Terhadap Penghindaran Pajak. Prosiding BIEMA (Business et
al. Seminar), 1, 569�586.
Yuliana, N. A., Nuryati, T., Rossa, E., & Machdar, N. M.
(2023). Pengaruh Perencanaan Pajak, Beban Pajak Tangguhan, dan Penghindaran
Pajak Terhadap Manajemen Laba. SINOMIKA Journal: Publikasi Ilmiah Bidang
Ekonomi Dan Akuntansi, 2(1), 55�64.
Yusuf, Y., Anthoni, L., & Suherman, A. (2022). Pengaruh
Intelectual Capital, Good Corporate Governance Dan Audit Internal Terhadap
Kinerja Keuangan Perusahaan Dengan Ukuran Perusahaan Dan Leverage Sebagai
Variabel Mediasi. Eqien-Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 11(03),
973�982.
