Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol.

7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND TAX AVOIDANCE OF

THE INDONESIAN BASIC MATERIALS AND ENERGY SECTOR

Dwi Novita Nanda Lestari1, Muamar Nur Kholid2

1,2
Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2
Corresponding author: [email protected]

INFORMASI ARTIKEL ABSTRAK

Article history: Studi ini dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk mendapatkan bukti empiris
Dikirim tanggal: 3/02/2024 mengenai pengaruh komisaris independen, profitabilitas, transformasi
Revisi pertama tanggal: 3/03/2024 digital, kooptasi CFO, kepemilikan institusional dan intensitas aset
Diterima tanggal:16/04/2024 tetap terhadap penghindaran pajak. Studi ini dilakukan secara spesifik
Tersedia online tanggal: 24/06/2024 pada perusahaan kategori sektor bahan dasar yang terdaftar di Bursa
Efek Indonesia (BEI) pada tahun 2018-2021. Teknik purposive
sampling digunakan untuk memilih sampel dalam studi ini.
Berdasarkan pada teknik tersebut, terdapat 30 perusahaan yang
memenuhi kriteria. Regresi berganda digunakan dalam penelitian ini
untuk menganalisis data yang telah dikumpulkan. Bukti empiris
menunjukkan bahwa penghindaran pajak dipengaruhi oleh kooptasi
CFO dan intensitas aset tetap. Studi ini tidak menemukan bukti empiris
pengaruh signifikan transformasi digital terhadap penghindaran pajak.
Lebih lanjut, penelitian ini mendiskusikan hasil penelitian baik
berkaitan dengan ranah teoretis maupun praktis.

Kata Kunci: Kooptasi CFO, transformasi digital, penghindaran pajak,

komisaris independen

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to obtain empirical evidence regarding the

effect of profitability, digital transformation, CFO co-optation, fixed
asset intensity, institutional ownership, and independent
commissioners on tax avoidance in companies included in the basic
material sector category listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in
2018-2021. The sampling technique in this study used the purposive
sampling method so that as many as 30 companies were obtained. The
data analysis method uses multiple regression analysis. The results of
this study show that CFO co-optation and intensity of fixed assets
positively affect tax avoidance. Meanwhile, digital transformation does
not affect tax avoidance. Furthermore, this study discusses research
results in theoretical and practical domains.

Keywords: CFO co-optation; digital transformation; tax avoidance,

Independent commissioner

©2018 FEB UNRAM. All rights reserved

51
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

1. Introduction
Tax represents an obligatory financial contribution to the state, enforced by Law
Number 28 of 2007, and serves to meet the state's requirements for the welfare of its
citizens (Waluyo, 2017). Paying taxes is not only a citizen's obligation but also a right,
signifying active participation in state financing and national development. The focus of
taxation is on income, encompassing all economic gains generated domestically or
internationally, contributing to needs fulfillment or wealth accumulation. From an
economic standpoint, tax is viewed as the transfer of resources from the private to the
public sector, ultimately supporting public welfare (Sutedi, 2011). To enhance revenue, the
government continually refines tax regulations, aiming for active tax compliance from both
individual and corporate taxpayers, thereby facilitating smooth national development.
In 2018, there was a slight increase in the tax-to-GDP ratio, reaching 10.24%
compared to the previous year. However, this ratio declined again in the subsequent year,
and 2020, it experienced a significant drop to 8.33% amidst the global COVID-19
pandemic, which exerted pressure on all aspects of economic activities, ranging from
business operations to international trade (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2023). As the economy
gradually recovered from the pandemic's impact, leading to improved tax performance, the
taxation ratio witnessed an increase from 2021 to 2022 (Dhini, 2022).
In practice, many companies perceive the imposed taxes as relatively substantial,
prompting them to undertake measures to minimize their tax liabilities. Companies often
view taxes as reducing the profits available for distribution to shareholders or for
additional capital in subsequent years. Consequently, management seeks ways to maximize
company profits, exploiting weaknesses in tax regulations or resorting to other methods,
sometimes involving illegal actions. There are two primary approaches to curbing taxes:
tax avoidance and tax evasion (Nasution & Mulyani, 2020). Tax avoidance involves legal
tax planning through the manipulation of taxable income, while tax evasion entails illicit
efforts to embezzle taxes from the taxable entity (Krisna, 2019). From the perspective of
the state, such actions lead to a loss of the anticipated revenue, resulting in insufficient
funds for operational activities. The conflicting interests between the state and companies
necessitate the government's increased efforts to collect public funds to attain the expected
welfare goals.
Tax avoidance constitutes one of the strategies or endeavors that companies employ
to reduce their tax burdens (Ratih & Harto, 2014). Companies engaged in tax avoidance
adhere to the limits outlined in tax regulations; however, they exploit the loopholes within
these regulations to minimize their tax obligations without violating any laws or
regulations. The practice of tax avoidance poses a complex challenge as these actions,
while not unlawful, are undesirable for the government due to their potential to diminish
state revenue (Darmayanti & Merkusiawati, 2019).
An instance of tax avoidance in Indonesia involves PT Adaro Energy Tbk, an energy
manufacturing company. This company engaged in tax avoidance for approximately eight
years, spanning from 2009 to 2017, primarily through the practice of transfer pricing
(Asmara, 2019). According to international reports, PT Adaro Energy paid $125 million
less in taxes than the amount it should have paid. The strategy employed by PT Adaro
Energy Tbk entails selling its products at lower prices to its subsidiary in Singapore, which

52
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

subsequently resells them at higher prices to other countries. This results in lower recorded
profits in Indonesia, leading to reduced taxes payable (Sugianto, 2019). While PT Adaro
Energy Tbk's tax avoidance is legal, it poses a detriment to state revenues, as the resources
involved originate from Indonesia.
Studies regarding tax avoidance have been researched by several researchers, such as
Athira & Lukose (2023), Campa et al. (2022), Baghdadi et al. (2022), Zhang et al. (2023),
Putri & Lawita (2019), Moeljono (2020), Mahdiana & Amin (2020), Fionasari et al.
(2020), Stawati (2020), Zoebar & Miftah (2020), Wanda & Halimatusadiah (2021), Pratiwi
(2018), Tanjaya & Nazir (2021). However, it is still rare to examine tax avoidance in the
basic materials and energy sectors. Even though cases like PT. Adaro Energy shows that
companies in the energy and basic materials sectors are not free from the possibility of
carrying out tax avoidance practices. Furthermore, digital transformation in Indonesia is an
important issue, and there are still minimal studies examining the relationship between
digital transformation and taxation in Indonesia. This study aims to investigate tax
avoidance by examining the impact of fixed asset intensity, digital transformation,
profitability, institutional ownership, and managerial ownership. This study distinguishes
itself from others by incorporating two independent variables, digital transformation and
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) cooptation, which have not been previously explored in
Indonesia, particularly within the context of tax avoidance. The study investigates
independent variables, including profitability, digital transformation, CFO co-optation,
fixed asset intensity, institutional ownership, and independent commissioners, all of which
are believed to significantly impact tax avoidance and can serve as an evaluative metric for
various stakeholders.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Agency theory provides insights into the connection dynamics between the owner
(principal) and management (agent), recognizing the divergence of their interests (Jensen
& Meckling, 1976). The theory posits that owners bear the responsibility of ensuring that
management makes efficient decisions while being accountable for them. On the other
hand, management is tasked with overseeing all company processes and activities. Due to
these distinct roles, there exists the potential for management to make decisions or take
actions that may not align with the owner's best interests (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).
Management has the responsibility to report the condition of the company to the
principal in the form of financial statements. Therefore, management has more information
than the principal. This encourages the principal to monitor regularly the actions taken by
management and ensure that these actions are not only oriented towards personal interests.
Two problems arise due to agency relationships. First, problems arise when there are
differences in objectives between the principal and the agent, and the principal also has
difficulty in monitoring what the agent does. Second, problems arise due to different views
between principals and agents regarding risk, where principals and agents can act
differently because they have different risk preferences (Eisenhardt, 2018).
The interplay between agency theory and tax avoidance emerges in the presence of
information asymmetry between creditors and investors as principals, and company
management as agents. This scenario involves management not disclosing comprehensive

53
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

information about the company to the principal (Handayani, 2018). Company

management, driven by the goal of enhancing the company's business, seeks to maximize
profits, and one strategy is manipulating earnings to alleviate the tax burden. These
earnings manipulation practices are typically known only to the management and might not
prioritize the welfare of the company's shareholders. On the other hand, the principal
desires to perceive the company's positive prospects without resorting to any illegitimate
actions, and tax avoidance activities can lead to a reduction in investor valuation. Conflict
of interest may arise from the principal and agent's competing interests (Handayani, 2018).
Stakeholder theory emerged as a result of increased awareness and understanding that
companies have stakeholders The idea of stakeholders theory pertains to a collection of
policies and practices related to stakeholders, values, and fulfillment of contributions to
sustainable development. According to stakeholder theory, organizations must take
stakeholders' interests into account when making decisions if they want to thrive in the
competitive business world (Humairoh, 2018). Stakeholders are various parties from
internal and external to the company that can influence or be influenced by the company.
In addition, this theory states that the company's responsibility is not only to the welfare of
the company but to the various parties affected by the implementation of the strategies and
policies set. If a company can fairly fulfill the interests of stakeholders, it can be said that
the company has been successful in developing its business. Then, the company will also
get full support and conquer market share in business competition (Tahar & Rachmawati,
2020). In this theory, the relevance to tax avoidance is when investors seek to increase the
power, legitimacy, and importance of a company which aims to strengthen the company's
relationship with external groups and help increase competitive advantage. Every investor
wants the company to have an increase and a good image, so the company seeks to
understand tax regulations to be able to arrange tax management properly and
appropriately so that the company's progress can be in line with government regulations.
Under the prevailing tax regulations in Indonesia, taxpayers must report and pay their
taxes according to the amount of wealth they have. However, several factors can lead to
unethical behavior consisting of tax evasion and avoidance. Tax avoidance is a transaction
strategy used to lower the tax burden that takes advantage of gaps or flaws in a nation's tax
laws so that tax professionals view it as acceptable since it doesn't break any laws (Putri &
Lawita, 2019). Most tax avoidance is associated with tax planning efforts which usually
refer to the process of designing businesses and transactions that taxpayers use to minimize
taxes owed but remain within the limits of tax regulations (Pratiwi, 2018). The amount of
tax imposed on each company is decreased as a result of the practice of tax avoidance by
companies. Although basically, tax avoidance actions do not violate the law on applicable
regulations, these actions have an impact on state tax revenues where the taxes received are
not optimal than they should be. One way to calculate tax avoidance can be done by using
the Effective Tax Ratio (ETR) which is expected to describe the overall management of the
tax system by comparing the tax burden and net income.
Profitability serves as a crucial indicator of a company's performance, offering
valuable insights to stakeholders. It signifies the company's capacity to generate profits
over a specific period concerning sales, total assets, and capital (Stawati, 2020). Consistent
profitability is a key benchmark reflecting the company's ability to sustain its operations

54
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

with economic resources (Pratiwi, 2018). This competence not only influences the
company's future outlook but also attracts investor interest. Therefore, expanding the
company's annual report becomes essential, enabling investors to gain a comprehensive
understanding for better analysis of the company's condition (Stawati, 2020). According to
agency theory, conflicts arise due to differing interests, particularly between company
management and the state (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). While the state grants management
the freedom to oversee business operations and make decisions, taxes pose a challenge for
companies as they are perceived as burdensome for business continuity. From the state's
perspective, taxes provide funding for public welfare and national development. However,
the amount of tax imposed on taxpayers relies on reported wealth sources in compliance
with the law. Given that profitability is a key performance indicator, companies with high
profitability face higher tax burdens. The imposition of taxes reduces the overall net profit
earned by the company. Hence, companies employ various strategies to optimize profits by
exploiting loopholes in government regulations and minimizing tax liabilities. Prior
research revealed that tax avoidance is positively impacted by profitability (Fionasari et al.,
2020, Pratiwi, 2018; Noviyani & Muid, 2019;).
H1: Profitability has a positive effect on tax avoidance.
Digital transformation is a comprehensive organizational change that encompasses
people, strategies, and structures, leveraging digital technology and adjusted business
models to enhance organizational performance (Wakil et al., 2022). This transformation
has revolutionized traditional business functions like sales, marketing, and customer
service, making them entirely digital (Wakil et al., 2022). The fast-paced evolution of
technology motivates companies to incorporate digital tools to broaden their market reach
and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their business processes. The
implementation of digital transformation has promise for improving corporate governance
competencies (Vial, 2021). In the era of the digital economy, technological innovation
introduces a novel approach to corporate governance, offering stakeholders greater ease in
overseeing management and, most importantly, significantly enhancing the transparency of
company information (Tiantian et al., 2023). Furthermore, the decision-making process
within the company is also influenced by digital transformation. As organizations embrace
digital transformation across their operations, it enables seamless data sharing among
various departments, fostering collaboration and functional integration. This leads to a
decentralized management structure, allowing managers to gain a better understanding of
the company's dynamics, enhance integration, optimize resource allocation, and improve
overall organizational effectiveness (Tiantian et al., 2023). Businesses that use digital
technology improve the transparency of accounting information and change the
relationship between shareholders and management, which reduces agency costs (Fryans et
al., 2018). Moreover, by strengthening internal control effectiveness, corporate digital
transformation might discourage tax evasion (Tiantian et al., 2023). High-quality internal
controls serve a governance function, effectively overseeing management's opportunistic
behavior, deterring improper conduct, and thereby preventing enterprises from engaging in
aggressive tax avoidance for private gain (Tiantian et al., 2023).
H2: Digital transformation has a negative effect on tax avoidance.

55
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

In running business operations, companies need an executive board as a conceptual

leader to determine company planning, strategy, and policy. The company's executive
board consists of three roles, namely the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), C-level
executives, and the board of directors, each of which is at the top level of management.
The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is part of the C-level executive who has the highest
position in financial management (Shaid, 2023). In their duties, CFOs have duties and
authorities that include financial management, cost cutting, increasing revenue monitoring
the company's cash flow, and establishing good relationships with investors and partners
(Campa et al., 2022). Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) bear the responsibility of furnishing
essential company information, particularly in the financial realm, to the CEO, enabling
strategic decision-making for the company's future. Among the cost-cutting measures
employed by CFOs is tax avoidance. This decision-making process may be driven by
pressure from the CEO seeking personal benefits, or it can be a strategic initiative put forth
by the CFO aligned with the company's objectives. However, both the CFO and the CEO
share a connection and influence each other in the decision-making process (Campa et al.,
2022). Consequently, the presence of a CFO co-opted into the CEO position presents an
enhanced opportunity for collaborative efforts in pursuing tax avoidance strategies.
H3: CFO co-optation has a negative effect on tax avoidance.

The amount of money allocated to the documented fixed assets is represented by the
company's fixed asset investment. Fixed assets comprise tangible assets in a ready-to-use
state or constructed in advance, intended to support the company's long-term business
operations and possessing a useful life of over one year. These assets include buildings,
equipment, machinery, and land (Yulyanti et al., 2022). In line with International
Accounting Standard (IAS) 16, recognition of fixed assets is contingent on the likelihood
that these assets will yield economic benefits in the future, and their acquisition costs can
be accurately determined. Fixed asset intensity serves as a metric to gauge the number of
fixed assets possessed by an entity, factoring in depreciation as a deduction from the
entity's profit (Nugroho et al., 2022). The magnitude of a company's profit is influenced by
the extent of its fixed assets, wherein higher fixed asset amounts result in lower profits due
to depreciation (Noviyani & Muid, 2019). Consequently, companies may leverage fixed
asset depreciation expenses to minimize taxes payable to the government.
H4: Fixed asset intensity has a positive effect on tax avoidance.
To distribute a specific degree of control, companies employ an ownership structure
through shareholders. The ownership structure is shaped not only by the mix of debt and
equity but also by the percentage of shareholder ownership held by management and
institutions. Classifying ownership structure by type reveals three categories: managerial
ownership, institutional ownership, and public ownership (Moeljono, 2020). Institutional
ownership is the percentage of the company's share ownership by institutional institutions
outside the company concerned (Moeljono, 2020). The high value of institutional
ownership increases the level of control and supervision of management behavior in
making decisions for the sustainability of the company (Dewi, 2019). Institutional
ownership can utilize the information that aims to increase company value and prevent
agency conflicts through supervision from institutional institutions. Institutional investors

56
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

are considered to be the most effective investors in regulating management actions because
institutional investors can utilize their rights in the internal parts of the company wisely.
H5: Institutional ownership has a negative effect on tax avoidance.
As per POJK Number 33, an independent commissioner is a board member included
in the board of commissioners' structure but originates from outside the public company.
This individual neither possesses shares, directly or indirectly, in the public company nor
maintains cooperative ties. Additionally, they are not a director or significant shareholder
and lack any business relationships associated with the company's activities. An
independent commissioner is characterized by a lack of cooperative associations with
either the owner or the leading figure of the controlling company. Furthermore, they do not
hold a position as the primary director of the relevant company, as outlined by regulations
established by the Indonesia Stock Exchange (Tahar & Rachmawati, 2020). The term
"independence" in the context of an independent board of commissioners signifies an
approach to problem-solving that avoids personal interests and mitigates conflicts of
interest. As outlined by the regulations in Law Number 40 of 2007 regarding limited
liability companies, the number of independent commissioners in a company may be one
or more individuals appointed through a General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) decision.
Importantly, these individuals are not affiliated with the main shareholders, the board of
directors, or other members of the board of commissioners. The independent board of
commissioners carries the responsibility and authority to ensure that the company's
management adheres to applicable laws and regulations within the country. Furthermore,
they play a crucial role in ensuring that governance principles and practices are effectively
implemented.
H6: The independent board of commissioners has a negative effect on tax avoidance.

3. Research Method
This research population is 103 basic material and energy sector companies registered
on the Indonesia Stock Exchange between 2018 and 2021. Through purposive sampling,
30 companies meeting specific criteria were selected, including being in the basic material
sector, presenting complete financial reports ending on December 31, and using the
Indonesian rupiah as the reporting currency. For analysis, financial reports that are publicly
accessible on the Indonesia Stock Exchange's official website are used as secondary data.
Table 1 presents a detailed explanation of sample selection in this study.

Table 1. Sample Selection

No Criteria Amount
1. Basic material sector companies in 2018-2021 listed on the Indonesia
103
Stock Exchange.
2. Publish complete financial reports and end on December 31. (54)
3. Present their financial statements in Indonesian rupiah currency. (19)
Total sample that meets the criteria 30

In this research, tax avoidance is the dependent variable, while the independent
variables consist of profitability, digital transformation, CFO co-optation, fixed asset

57
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

intensity; institutional ownership, and independent commissioner. The measurements for

each of the variables used in this study are presented in Table 2. Multiple Linear
Regression, made possible by SPSS 22, is the data analysis technique utilized. Before
hypothesis testing, classical assumption testing is conducted, encompassing the
Multicollinearity, Normality, Autocorrelation, and Heteroscedasticity Test. To evaluate the
factors associated with tax avoidance, the following model will be assessed:
𝑌 𝛼 𝛽 𝑋 𝛽 𝑋 𝛽 𝑋 𝛽 𝑋 𝛽 𝑋 𝛽𝑋 𝑒

(Note: Y= tax avoidance; a= Constant coefficient; β= Regression coefficient; X1=

Profitability; X2= Digital transformation; X3= CFO Cooptation; X4= Fixed Asset
Intensity; X5= Institutional Ownership; X6= Independent Commissioner; e= Error).

Table 2. Measurement of Variables

No Variable Indicator References
𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑎𝑥 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 Sahrir et al.
1. Tax Avoidance (Y) 𝐸𝑇𝑅 𝑥 100%
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝐵𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑇𝑎𝑥 (2021)
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝐴𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑥 Moeljono
2. Profitability (X1) 𝑅𝑂𝐴 𝑥 100%
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 (2020)
3. Digital
DT = Logarithm natural of the frequency of the word Tiantian et al.
Transformation
"digital transformation" (2023)
(X2)
1 = If the CFO was hired during the current CEO's term Campa et al.
4. CFO Cooptation
0 = If no CFO was hired during the current CEO's tenure (2022)
Fixed Asset 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡 Nasution &
5. 𝐹𝐴𝐼 𝑥 100%
Intensity (X4) 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 Mulyani (2020)
Tahar &
6. Institutional 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝐼𝑂 𝑥 100% Rachmawati
Ownership (X5) 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
(2020)
7. Independent 𝐼𝐶
Masrurroch et
Commissioner 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐵𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠
al. (2021)
(X6) / 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑥 100%
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡
𝐿𝑉 𝑥 100% Stawati (2020)
8. Leverage (X7) 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠

Stawati (2020)
9. Firm Size (X8) Firm size = Logaritma Natural (Total aset)

4. Results and Discussion

Before the regression model is interpreted, the classical assumption test is first carried
out. The analysis of classical assumption tests has been conducted, and the results indicate
that all tests, including normality, multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, and autocorrelation
tests, have been met. The normality assessment was conducted using the One-Sample
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, revealing an Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value of 0.200. Since this
value exceeds 0.05, it indicates that the residual values follow a normal distribution. The
examination for multicollinearity was conducted using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
and tolerance method. The results show that all variable VIF values are between 1.104 and

58
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

2.011, and tolerance values are between 0.497 and 0.905. Consequently, it can be inferred
that there are no issues of multicollinearity. Additionally, the heteroscedasticity
examination was carried out utilizing the scatterplots technique. The results of the
investigation show that the residual values scatter on the Y-axis above and below the zero
point. Thus, it may be said that there are no signs of heteroscedasticity in the research data.
Finally, concerning the autocorrelation examination, this research employs the Durbin-
Watson test. The results of the Durbin-Watson (DW) test reveal a DW value of 1.908.
Additionally, the DU value is determined to be 1.8655, and the 4-DU value is 2.1345.
Given that 1.8655 < 1.908 < 2.1345, it can be said that there is no evidence of
autocorrelation in the regression model.
Table 3 presents the results of data analysis for the coefficient of determination (R2).
Based on Table 3, the adjusted R-square value is obtained at 0.104, which means that the
variables that affect tax avoidance in this case profitability, digital transformation, CFO co-
optation, fixed asset intensity, institutional ownership, independent commissioners and
leverage control variables and company size in this study are only 10.4%. While the
remaining 89.6% is the influence of other variables that are not explained in this study.
Furthermore, the F-test results show that the F-value: is 2.086 with a sig value of 0.049,
which means that the regression model as a whole fits the data and indicates that the
independent variables can significantly predict the dependent variable.

Table 3. Results of Coefficient of Determination and Hypothesis Testing

Unstandardized Standardized
Variables Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
Profitability (H1) -1,106 ,627 -,243 -1,763 ,082
Digital Transformation (H2) -,008 ,015 -,083 -,534 ,595
CFO Cooptation (H3) ,066 ,032 ,239 2,079 ,041*
Fixed Asset Intensity (H4) ,173 ,085 ,310 2,021 ,047*
Institutional Ownership (H5) -,014 ,070 -,023 -,200 ,842
Independent Commissioner (H6) -,022 ,191 -,015 -,117 ,908
Leverage -,102 ,090 -,148 -1,138 ,259
Company Size ,003 ,004 ,128 ,955 ,343
R Square = 0,199 F-Test value = 2,086
Adj. R Square = 0,104 F Test Sig. = 0,049
*) significant at α = 5%

The profitability variable has a value of -1.763 with a negative direction and a sig.
value of 0.082>0.05, according to the findings of the hypothesis testing in Table 3. This
means that H1 is rejected, indicating that the profitability variable does not affect tax
avoidance. H2 is denied because the digital transformation variable has a negative
direction of -0.534 and a sig. value of 0.595>0.05, indicating that it does not influence tax
avoidance. The CFO cooptation variable is 2.079 with a positive direction and a sig. value
of 0.041 <0.05 so that H3 is accepted, which means that the CFO cooptation variable has a
positive effect on tax avoidance. The fixed asset intensity variable is 2.021 with a positive
direction and a sig. value of 0.047 <0.05 so that H4 is accepted, which means that the fixed

59
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

asset intensity variable has a positive effect on tax avoidance. With a sig. value of
0.842>0.05 and a negative direction of -0.200, the institutional ownership variable
indicates that there is no relationship between the variable and tax avoidance, leading to
the rejection of H5. H6 is rejected since the independent commissioner variable does not
affect tax avoidance, as seen by the independent commissioner variable's negative direction
of -0.117 and sig. value of 0.908> 0.05. The results of data analysis show that leverage (sig
value 0.259) and company size (sig value 0.343) have no significant effect on tax
avoidance.
Regression analysis test results indicate that there is no relationship between
profitability and tax avoidance. The findings of Pratiwi (2018), Noviyani & Muid (2019),
and Fionasari et al. (2020) that profitability has positive effects on the avoidance of taxes
are not supported by the findings of this study. Conversely, this study is in accordance with
the results of research by Moeljono (2020) A company that has higher profitability causes
the effective tax rate (ETR) value to be smaller. The existence of high profitability makes
the company carry out tax planning which aims to reduce the tax charged so that the
company's financial statements become more optimal. When the company has an increased
profit, it illustrates that the company has good performance in managing its resources and
attracts investors to invest in the company. However, this can weaken state revenue
because the amount of tax that should be imposed may not be appropriate due to certain
factors carried out by companies in tax planning. Therefore, the government is expected to
emphasize the principles of transparency and accountability. The application of the
principle of transparency is carried out by companies being required to provide true
information about the condition of the company, the profits generated, the transactions that
have been carried out, and other information needed by investors and the government.
Meanwhile, the application of the principle of accountability is carried out by companies
being required to comply with legal regulations made by the government such as reporting
tax returns under the company's circumstances and not committing fraudulent acts with the
tax authorities so that tax avoidance can be minimized so that state revenue runs smoothly.
The test results of the regression analysis state that digital transformation does not
affect tax avoidance. This study is not following the results of research conducted by
Tiantian et al. (2023) that digital transformation has a negative effect on tax avoidance.
The implementation of digital transformation includes the use of information technology
which aims to increase efficiency, productivity, and innovation for companies.
Technological advances not only provide benefits but also have drawbacks that are used to
commit fraudulent practices. The lack of effect of digital transformation on tax avoidance
is because companies utilize digital transformation to further maximize their profits by
conducting more comprehensive analysis in conducting more sophisticated tax planning.
Digital transformation can also not automatically reduce complexity in the business
structure of multinational companies, making it possible to conduct tax avoidance through
tax loopholes. The existence of digital transformation can create opportunities for
companies to carry out complex and even exploitative tax techniques if the company has a
team of tax experts who can take advantage of tax regulation loopholes. Thus, the
government is expected to increase the capacity of taxation institutions to oversee digital
business activities by providing tax training on the technical aspects of digital

60
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

transformation to ensure that companies comply with tax regulations. In addition, the
government can also participate in utilizing the application of digital transformation by
building an information disclosure platform and a monitoring platform that is
interconnected with the company's internal system so that corporate tax payments can be
monitored thoroughly so that there is no room for companies to avoid tax.
The findings from the regression analysis reveal that Chief Financial Officer/CFO
cooptation has a positive impact on tax avoidance. This aligns with the results of a study
by Campa et al. (2021), which also concluded that CFO cooptation positively influences
tax avoidance. In the realm of corporate governance, the executive board holds the primary
responsibility for managing business affairs, and the CFO, as a member of this board,
oversees corporate finance, including tax management. Practically, a co-opted CFO shares
the same objective with the CEO, aiming to maximize profits. Increased profits contribute
to favorable company performance, leading to management incentives for the executive
board. Additionally, co-opted CFOs may prioritize personal gain over the social impact of
tax burdens, making them more inclined toward aggressive tax avoidance. Thus,
companies need to consider the background of CFO candidates before being co-opted to
ensure that when serving as CFO can have strong independence and strategic decision-
making for the future sustainability of the company. The practice of tax avoidance is not
illegal, but when this practice is carried out with high aggressiveness it can cause the risk
of costs or fines to the company. When the company is proven to have unreasonable tax
avoidance, it will have an impact on the company's value which causes a decrease in the
interest of potential investors to invest in the company. As a result, the company will
experience a decrease in capital and is likely to earn low profits. Companies can provide
training and education on legal tax principles to new CFOs and finance staff to understand
the legal implications and risks of unethical tax avoidance. To prevent illegal actions
regarding taxation, companies can increase the role and function of the board of
commissioners in monitoring and evaluating tax practices.
Regression analysis testing results indicate that tax avoidance is positively impacted
by fixed asset intensity. The present study is consistent with the findings of Noviyani &
Muid's (2019) and Sahrir et al.'s (2021) studies, which indicate that fixed asset intensity
positively impacts tax avoidance. The increasing intensity of fixed assets in a company
affects the increasing practice of tax avoidance. The significant effect of fixed asset
intensity on tax avoidance is that fixed assets have a depreciation value that can be used by
management to carry out aggressive reporting to minimize taxes to be paid. Management
will carry out tax planning through depreciation income tax from fixed assets such as land,
buildings, and equipment. Then, if the company can apply the right ownership structure
such as long-term leasing, it can maximize tax benefits because the cost of the lease can be
recognized as a tax expense. In addition, companies that focus on fixed asset investments
such as the use of high technology make it easier to use tax credits. To counteract potential
tax avoidance facilitated by companies through fixed asset intensity, the government can
enhance and bolster the integrity of tax authorities. This can be achieved by redefining
income and deduction parameters used in calculating corporate taxes. Updating
depreciation rules to ensure accurate valuation and depreciation may also serve as a
preventive measure against tax evasion. Moreover, improvements to tax laws,

61
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

incorporating clear details and insights derived from the analysis of past tax evasion cases,
can contribute to the government's efforts in thwarting tax evasion. To identify instances of
tax evasion, the government may opt for a comprehensive analysis of financial data,
aiming to detect suspicious patterns associated with the utilization of fixed asset intensity
as a strategy for tax evasion.
The results of regression analysis testing state that institutional ownership does not
affect tax avoidance. This study is not in accordance with the results of research conducted
by Krisna (2019) and Noviyani & Muid (2019) that institutional ownership has a negative
effect on tax avoidance. Conversely, this study is in accordance with the results of research
conducted by Moeljono (2020) that institutional ownership does not affect tax avoidance.
The absence of a significant influence between institutional ownership and tax avoidance
can be caused by the size of the presentation of institutional shares does not make
companies avoid tax avoidance practices. Although institutional ownership can monitor
and influence company management, it is not necessarily that these actions can fully
control management behavior. What may happen is that institutional ownership has
entrusted the role and function of the board of commissioners who have the responsibility
to oversee management decision-making so that the presence or absence of institutional
shares does not affect tax avoidance. Therefore, the government must intensify oversight
over companies with high institutional ownership to prevent the manipulation of
institutional ownership for tax reduction purposes. Collaborating with other countries can
be an effective strategy to counteract cross-border tax avoidance practices involving
foreign institutional ownership. Additionally, implementing more pertinent information
disclosure requirements directly integrated into the company's system can aid in
identifying and curbing tax avoidance practices associated with institutional ownership.
Regression analysis testing indicates that there is no relationship between independent
commissioners and avoidance of taxes. This study is not in accordance with the results of
research conducted by (Siregar et al., 2022) and (Pratomo & Rana, 2021) that the board of
commissioners has a negative effect on tax avoidance. Conversely, This analysis supports
the findings of a study by Mulyana et al. (2020), which found no evidence of a relationship
between independent commissioners and avoidance of taxes. The absence of influence
between independent commissioners and tax avoidance can be caused by the number of
commissioners in the company, not all of whom have strong independence in carrying out
their duties and functions as supervisors of company operations. Then, the number of
affiliated parties in the company compared to the proportion of independent commissioners
can control independent commissioners regarding the process of disclosure and provision
of information. In addition, the existence of independent commissioners cannot guarantee
that the company must comply with applicable legal regulations due to the lack of
professionals in management supervision. Thus, the government is expected to carry out
regular supervision and control of each company to determine whether the implementation
of the functions and responsibilities of the independent commissioner is in accordance with
the procedure or not. The government also needs to consider companies that have some
affiliated parties, because in this case, these parties can have the same goal of obtaining
maximum profit through making various decisions so that it can make it possible to
practice tax avoidance.

62
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

Regarding control variables, this research reveals that neither company size nor
leverage significantly influences tax avoidance. This is because tax avoidance practices can
be executed irrespective of a company's size or level of debt. Company size and debt do
not provide different pressures for companies to do or not do tax avoidance, this is because
other factors have a more dominant influence on tax avoidance.

5. Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations

The results of the empirical investigation show that digital transformation, institutional
ownership, and independent commissioners do not significantly affect tax avoidance. In
contrast, the co-optation of the chief financial officer (CFO) and fixed asset intensity
positively affect tax avoidance. These results indicate that co-opted CFOs may prioritize
personal benefits over the social impact of the tax burden, making them more likely to
engage in aggressive tax avoidance. The significant influence of fixed asset intensity on tax
avoidance is that fixed assets have a depreciation value, which management can utilize to
carry out aggressive reporting to minimize the tax that must be paid. However, it is
essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study, including the challenges in obtaining
complete annual reports for the selected periods and using the effective tax rate (ETR)
alone as an indicator of tax avoidance. Future research could consider using alternative
indicators such as book-tax difference (BTD). Furthermore, considering that the digital
transformation variable is a variable that is still rarely researched, measuring digital
transformation also needs to be examined in other ways. In addition, researchers can
explore and include other variables that have the potential to influence tax avoidance,
aiming to increase the completeness of the analysis.

References
Asmara, C. G. (2019). Soal Pajak Adaro, Sri Mulyani: Selama Ini Sudah Transparan.
CNBC Indonesia. https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/market/20190708190803-17-
83487/soal-pajak-adaro-sri-mulyani-selama-ini-sudah-transparan
Athira, A., & Lukose, P. J. (2023). Do common institutional owners' activisms deter tax
avoidance? Evidence from an emerging economy. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 80,
102090 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102090
Badan Pusat Statistik. (2023). Realisasi Pendapatan Negara (Milyar Rupiah), 2021-2023.
Badan Pusat Statistik.
Baghdadi, G., Podolski, E. J., & Veeraraghavan, M. (2022). CEO risk-seeking and
corporate tax avoidance: Evidence from pilot CEOs. Journal of Corporate
Finance, 76, 102282 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2022.102282
Campa, D., Ginesti, G., Allini, A., & Casciello, R. (2022). Chief financial officer co-option
and tax avoidance in European listed firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,
41(1), 106935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106935
Darmayanti, P., & Merkusiawati, N. (2019). Pengaruh ukuran perusahaan, profitabilitas,
koneksi politik dan pengungkapan corporate social responsibility pada tax avoidance.
E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 26 (3), 992- 2019 https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2019.v26.i03.p12
Dhini, V. A. (2022). Ini Tren Tax Ratio Indonesia dalam 5 Tahun Terakhir. Databoks.
https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2022/08/05/ini-tren-tax-ratio-indonesia-

63
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

dalam-5-tahun-terakhir
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018). Agency Theory : An assessment and review. Academy of
Management, 14(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191
Fionasari, D., Putri, A.A. & Sanjaya, P. (2020). Analisis faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi
penghindaran pajak pada perusahaan pertambangan di Bursa Efek Indonesia (BEI)
tahun 2016-2018. Jurnal IAKP: Jurnal Inovasi Akuntansi Keuangan & Perpajakan,
1(1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.35314/iakp.v1i1.1410
Frynas, J. G., Mol, M. J., & Mellahi, K. (2018). Management innovation made in China:
Haier’s Rendanheyi. California Management Review, 61(1), 71-93.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618790244
Ghozali, I. (2018). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program IBM SPSS 25.
Universitas Diponegoro.
Handayani, R. (2018). Pengaruh return on assets (ROA), leverage dan ukuran perusahaan
terhadap tax avoidance pada perusahaan perbankan yang listing di BEI periode tahun
2012-2015. Jurnal Akuntansi Maranatha, 10(1), 72–84.
https://doi.org/10.28932/jam.v10i1.930
Humairoh, F. (2018). Pengaruh corporate social responsibility dan kepemilikan manajerial
terhadap nilai perusahaan dengan profitabilitas dan ukuran perusahaan sebagai
variabel moderating pada perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia periode 2013--2015. Balance: Jurnal Akuntansi, Auditing dan Keuangan,
15(2), 162–188. https://doi.org/10.25170/balance.v15i2.81
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency
costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Krisna, A. M. (2019). Pengaruh kepemilikan institusional dan kepemilikan manajerial pada
tax avoidance dengan kualitas audit sebagai variabel pemoderasi. Jurnal Ekonomi,
Bisnis Dan Akuntansi, 18(2), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.22225/we.18.2.1162.82-91
Mahdiana, Q.M. & Amin, M.N. (2020). Perusahaan, dan Sales Growth Terhadap Tax.
Jurnal Akuntansi Trisakti 7(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.25105/jat.v7i1.6289
Mardiatmoko, G. (2020). Pentingnya uji asumsi klasik pada analisis regresi linier
berganda. Barekeng: Jurnal Ilmu Matematika dan Terapan, 14(3), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.30598/barekengvol14iss3pp333-342
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, 9(1), 40-51.
https://doi.org/10.26714/mki.9.1.2019.40-51
Moeljono, M. (2020). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penghindaran pajak. Jurnal
Penelitan Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 5(1), 103–121.
https://doi.org/10.33633/jpeb.v5i1.2645
Mulyana, Y., Mulyati, S., & Umiyati, I. (2020). Pengaruh komisaris independen,
kompensasi rugi fiskal dan pertumbuhan aset terhadap penghindaran pajak. Jurnal
SIKAP (Sistem Informasi, Keuangan, Auditing Dan Perpajakan) 4(2), 160-172.
https://doi.org/10.32897/jsikap.v4i2.202
Nasution, K. M. P., & Mulyani, S. D. (2020). Pengaruh intensitas aset tetap dan intensitas
persediaan terhadap penghindaran pajak dengan pertumbuhan penjualan sebagai

64
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

variabel moderasi. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pakar, 2010, 1–7.

https://doi.org/10.25105/pakar.v0i0.6871
Noorica, F., & Asalam, A. G. (2021). Pengaruh kepemilikan institusional, kepemilikan
manajerial, dan karakter eksekutif terhadap tax avoidance. Competitive Jurnal
Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 5(2), 221-232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.31000/competitive.v5i2.5041
Noviyani, E., & Muid, D. (2019). Pengaruh return on assets, leverage, ukuran perusahaan,
intensitas aset tetap, dan kepemilikan institusional terhadap penghindaran pajak.
Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 8(3), 1–11.
Nugroho, A. C., Mulyanto, M., & Afifi, Z. (2022). Pengaruh financial distress, leverage,
sales growth, manajemen laba, dan intensitas aset tetap terhadap penghindaran pajak
(Studi empiris pada perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di BEI selama tahun 2018-
2021). Jurnal Economina, 1(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.55681/economina.v1i2.27
Pratiwi, A. P. (2018). Pengaruh kepemilikan institusional dan kinerja keuangan terhadap
penghindaran pajak dengan CSR sebagai pemediasi. Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen dan
Bisnis, 9(2), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.17509/jimb.v9i2.13991
Pratomo, D., & Rana, R. (2021). Pengaruh kepemilikan institusional, komisaris
independen dan komite audit terhadap penghindaran pajak. JAK (Jurnal Akuntansi)
Kajian Ilmiah Akuntansi, 8(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.30656/jak.v8i1.2487
Puspadini, M. (2023). Sektor Keuangan Kuasai 35% Pasar Modal RI, Teknologi Cuma
4%. CNBC Indonesia. https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/market/20230515101812-17-
437306/sektor-keuangan-kuasai-35-pasar-modal-ri-teknologi-cuma-4
Putri, A. A., & Lawita, N. F. (2019). Pengaruh kepemilikan institusional dan kepemilikan
manajerial terhadap penghindaran pajak. Jurnal Akuntansi & Ekonomika, 9(1), 68-75.
Ratih, P. S. & Harto, P. (2014). Pengaruh tata kelola perusahaan terhadap penghindaran
pajak. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 3(2), 1–13. http://ejournal-
s1.undip.ac.id/index.php/accounting
Sahrir, S., Syamsuddin, S., & Sultan, S. (2021). Pengaruh koneksi politik, intensitas aset
tetap, komisaris independen, profitabilitas dan leverage terhadap tax avoidance.
Jurnal Penelitian Ekonomi Akuntansi (JENSI), 5(1), 14–30.
https://doi.org/10.33059/jensi.v5i1.3517
Yulyanti, S., Abbas,D.S., Hidayat, I. & Watiyarrahmah, W. (2022). Pengaruh intensitas
asset tetap, intensitas modal, pertumbuhan penjualan dan leverage terhadap tax
avoidance. JUMBIWIRA : Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis Kewirausahaan, 1(3), 24–32.
https://doi.org/10.56910/jumbiwira.v1i3.256
Shaid, N. J. (2023). Mengenal Perbedaan CEO, COO, CFO, CTO, dan CMO di
Perusahaan. Kompas.Com.
https://money.kompas.com/read/2022/03/06/234842526/mengenal-perbedaan-ceo-
coo-cfo-cto-dan-cmo-di-perusahaan?page=all
Siregar, N., Rahman, A., & Aryathama, H. G. (2022). Pengaruh manajemen laba, kualitas
audit, komite audit, komisaris independen dan kepemilikan institusional terhadap
penghindaran pajak. JIS (Jurnal Ilmu Siber), 1(3), 16–24.
http://www.bppk.kemenkeu.
Stawati, S. (2020). Pengaruh profitabilitas, leverage dan ukuran perusahaan terhadap

65
 Jurnal Studi Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 7(1), 2024, halaman 51 - 66

penghindaran pajak. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Bisnis 6 (November), 147–157.

https://doi.org/10.31289/jab.v6i2.3472
Sugianto, D. (2019). Mengenal soal Penghindaran Pajak yang Dituduhkan ke Adaro.
Detikfinance. https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-4612708/mengenal-
soal-penghindaran-pajak-yang-dituduhkan-ke-adaro
Sugiyono. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. CV ALFABETA.
Tahar, A., & Rachmawati, D. (2020). Pengaruh mekanisme corporate governance,
corporate social responsibility, ukuran perusahaan dan leverage terhadap
penghindaran pajak (Studi pada perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia tahun 2015-2017). Kompartemen: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, 18(1), 98–115.
https://doi.org/10.30595/kompartemen.v18i1.6342
Tanjaya, C., & Nazir, N. (2021). Pengaruh profitabilitas, leverage, pertumbuhan penjualan,
dan ukuran perusahaan terhadap penghindaran pajak. Jurnal Akuntansi Trisakti, 8(2),
189-208.
Tiantian, G., Hailin, C., Zhou, X., Ai, S., & Siyao, W. (2023). Does corporate digital
transformation affect the level of corporate tax avoidance? Empirical evidence from
Chinese listed tourism companies. Finance Research Letters, 57(July), 104271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104271
Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research
agenda. Managing digital transformation, 28(2), 13-66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Wakil, A., Retno, R., Harto, B., Latif, A. S., Hidayatullah, D., Simanjutak, P., Rukmana,
A. Y., & Sihombing, F. A. (2022). Transformasi Digital Dalam Dunia Bisnis. 1st ed.
Global Eksekutif Teknologi.
Waluyo. (2017). Perpajakan Indonesia (Salemba Empat (ed.); 12th ed.).
Wanda, A. P., & Halimatusadiah, E. (2021). Pengaruh solvabilitas dan profitabilitas
terhadap penghindaran pajak. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi, 59-65.
https://doi.org/10.29313/jra.v1i1.194
Zhang, Z., Wang, Z., Si, Y., & Li, T. (2023). Administrative monopoly regulation and
corporate tax avoidance-evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 58,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2022.2106850
Zoebar, M. K. Y., & Miftah, D. (2020). Pengaruh corporate social responsibility, capital
intensity dan kualitas audit terhadap penghindaran pajak. Jurnal Magister Akuntansi
Trisakti 7(1), 25-40. : http://dx.doi.org/10.25105/jmat.v7i1.6315

66