Cogent Business & Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20

The role of internal control in the relationship

of board gender diversity, audit committee, and
independent commissioner on tax aggressiveness

Nanik Sri Utaminingsih, Dini Kurniasih, Maylia Pramono Sari & Monica
Rahardian Ary Helmina

To cite this article: Nanik Sri Utaminingsih, Dini Kurniasih, Maylia Pramono Sari & Monica
Rahardian Ary Helmina (2022) The role of internal control in the relationship of board gender
diversity, audit committee, and independent commissioner on tax aggressiveness, Cogent
Business & Management, 9:1, 2122333, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 12 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5896

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

ACCOUNTING, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & BUSINESS ETHICS |

RESEARCH ARTICLE
The role of internal control in the relationship of
board gender diversity, audit committee, and
independent commissioner on tax
Received: 22 July 2022
Accepted: 29 August 2022 aggressiveness
*Corresponding author: Nanik Sri
Nanik Sri Utaminingsih1*, Dini Kurniasih1, Maylia Pramono Sari2 and Monica Rahardian Ary Helmina3
Utaminingsih Akuntansi, Universitas
Negeri Semarang Fakultas Ekonomi,
Indonesia Abstract: This study aims to obtain empirical evidence regarding the effect of
E-mail: [email protected].
ac.id gender diversity on the board of commissioners, audit committees, and indepen­
dent commissioners on tax aggressiveness, as well as the role of internal control as
Reviewing editor:
Collins G. Ntim, Accounting, a moderating variable. The population is property, real estate, and building con­
University of Southampton,
Southampton, UK struction companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2015–
2020 period. Sample selection using the purposive sampling technique obtained 23
Additional information is available at
the end of the article companies with 138 units of analysis (panel data). The results show that the board’s
gender diversity has a significant negative effect on tax aggressiveness. The audit
committee and independent commissioners have no effect on tax aggressiveness.
Internal control is not able to moderate the relationship between them. This
research is useful for the company’s management to determine a strategy for
carrying out tax aggressiveness. Further research combines internal and external
factors of the company and uses other factors that can affect tax aggressiveness.

Subjects: Corporate Finance; Accounting; Corporate Governance

Keywords: Tax aggressiveness; board gender diversity; audit committee; independent

commissioner; internal control

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Nanik Sri Utaminingsih is a lecturer in the economics faculty of the accounting study program at the
State University of Semarang. Indonesia. She graduated PhD from Diponegoro University in 2021 with
the dissertation title “Behavioral Models of Premature Sign Off Audit Procedures: Testing Professional
Skepticism as a Mediator”. Scientific articles that have been published in indexed journals entitled
Professional Skepticism Antacedent Of Premature Sign Off Auditor (2018); Determinants of Employee
Performance Based on Remuneration (2019); Control Effectiveness and Fraud: Evidence in Indonesia
Cooperative (2020); The Role Of Quality Control On The Formation Of Auditor’s Professional Skepticism
(2021). She has been a presenter at an international conference with the article title “Village-Owned
Enterprises Performance and Rural Entrepreneurship Development in Central Java” (2021). She is
appointed as reviewer at two local journals. The books that have been made include “Books on
Accounting Systems for MSMEs” and “Auditing: Concepts and Theories”. Currently the author is involved
in 3 research activities funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology.

Nanik Sri Utaminingsih

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

1. Introduction
Tax aggressiveness is an action taken by the company to reduce the company’s expenses in
fulfilling tax obligations. Tax aggressiveness in Indonesia can be carried out in 2 (two) ways,
namely legal tax planning or tax avoidance, namely efforts to reduce the company’s tax burden
by taking advantage of loopholes in tax provisions. Second, illegal tax planning or tax evasion is an
attempt by the company to reduce the company’s tax burden by violating tax provisions.

In the agency theory framework, tax aggressiveness is a form of moral hazard from the agent.
An agent seeks to reduce the company’s tax burden with the aim that the company’s profit is not
reduced too much through tax aggressiveness. This is due to the information asymmetry between
the agent (company manager) and the principal (shareholder).

The company’s management actions to tax aggressiveness are driven because of the desire to
obtain high residual profits after fulfilling tax obligations by reducing the company’s tax burden.
Several companies in Indonesia reported increasing losses, but these companies were still able to
operate and further expand their business. Therefore, the Minister of Finance wishes to carry out
fair tax compliance because there are still many corporate taxpayers who do tax avoidance.

Tax revenues for companies in the construction and real estate sectors are still relatively low
compared to companies in other sectors. Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati noted that tax
revenues in several corporate sectors decreased during 2020. Tax revenues for construction and
real estate companies were minus 22.56%, processing companies were minus 20.21%, trading
companies were minus 18.94%, transportation and warehousing companies by minus 15.41%, and
financial services and insurance companies by minus 14.31%. (Kontan, 2021).

In 2016 there was a tax avoidance phenomenon, namely the leak of a document known as the
Panama Papers, which contained a number of parties involved in tax evasion assisted by law firm
Mossack Fonseca. According to the International Consortium of Investigate Journalism (ICIJ), the total
data leak was 11.5 million documents. Property and real estate company, namely PT. Agung
Podomoro Land Tbk. and PT. Ciputra Development Tbk. included in a number of names listed in the
Panama Papers, so it is suspected that the two companies were illegally evading tax (Republika, 2016).

Several previous studies have explained the effect of board gender diversity on tax aggressive­
ness, but the results of previous studies found a research gap. Research conducted by Boussaidi
and Hamed-Sidhom (2020), Suleiman et al. (2020), and Richardson and Lanis (2016) stated that
the gender diversity of the board has a negative effect on tax aggressiveness. Another finding in
the research of Duong and Pallasch (2021) and Cortellese (2020) explains that the gender diversity
of the board has no effect on tax aggressiveness. The gender diversity of the board is one aspect of
the diversity contained in the board in the form of gender, namely female and male. Women are
considered to be more careful in making decisions, more transparent in financial statements, more
risk averse, and obedient to regulations so as to prevent companies from taking tax aggressive
actions.

Previous research has also explained the effect of the audit committee on tax aggressiveness,
but previous studies have found inconsistent results. Research Zheng et al. (2019) and Ginting and
Suryani (2018) reveal that the audit committee has a negative effect on tax aggressiveness.
Different findings were found in the research of Ratnawati et al. (2019) and Susanto et al. (2018)
stated that the audit committee has no effect on tax aggressiveness. The audit committee is an
additional committee established by the board of commissioners with the aim of assisting the
board of commissioners in carrying out their duties and functions. Effective supervision by the
audit committee to the company’s management can reduce tax aggressiveness.

Previous research has explained the effect of independent commissioners on tax aggressiveness,
but the results of previous studies still found a research gap. Research conducted by Boussaidi and

Page 2 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

Hamed-Sidhom (2020) and Wahab et al. (2017) stated that independent commissioners have
a positive effect on tax aggressiveness. Another finding in the research of Novitasari et al. (2017)
and Fadli et al. (2016) revealed that independent commissioners have a negative effect on tax
aggressiveness. Different findings were found in the study of Susanto et al. (2018) and Ginting and
Suryani (2018) explain that independent commissioners have no effect on tax aggressiveness. An
independent commissioner is a board of commissioners who has no relationship with any party
such as company managers, shareholders, and others that can affect their independence. The
presence of an independent commissioner as a strict supervisor can prevent tax aggressiveness
from occurring.

Previous research shows that there is still a research gap regarding the factors that influence
companies in taking tax aggressiveness actions. These inconsistent results provide an opportunity
for researchers to review the factors that influence tax aggressiveness such as the gender diversity
of the board, audit committee, and independent commissioners. In addition, the inconsistency of
the results of the study prompted researchers to add a moderating variable, namely internal
control. Internal control is a procedure that can be influenced by information technology systems
and human resources to assist the company in achieving its goals. Companies with effective
internal controls can reduce tax aggressiveness so that they can strengthen the relationship
between the gender diversity of the board, audit committee, and independent commissioners on
tax aggressiveness.

This study expands on previous research because there are still research gaps regarding tax
aggressiveness and the factors that influence it. The novelty of this research when viewed from the
research variable is that there is an addition of internal control as moderation. Internal control was
chosen as the moderating variable with the following considerations. Internal control is a system
that must be owned by a company. However, there is a need for testing related to the effective­
ness of internal controls. Effective internal control guarantees that the company in carrying out all
of its operational activities is in accordance with the standards and laws and regulations such as
regulations on tax payments, so as to strengthen the influence of the diversity of the board, audit
committee, and independent commissioner on tax aggressiveness. In addition, methodologically it
is known that internal control as a moderating variable is a variable that can affect the direction or
strength of the relationship between the diversity of the board, audit committee, and independent
commissioner as an independent variable on tax aggressiveness as the dependent variable.
Research that examines internal control as a moderating variable on the topic of tax aggressive­
ness has not been widely carried out by previous researchers. The next novelty is an analytical
technique used specifically for panel data using Eviews.

The objects used in this study are property, real estate, and building construction companies
listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) during the 2015–2020 period. The population in this
study amounted to 99 companies, while the samples obtained were 138 units of analysis. This
research data is secondary data that can be obtained through the annual reports and financial
statements of each company. The data analysis technique in this study used moderated regression
analysis with the Eviews version 9 application.

This study examines the effect of gender diversity on the board, audit committee, and indepen­
dent commissioners on tax aggressiveness. In addition, this study also examines the role of
internal control as a moderator in this relationship. This research is reviewed because the results
of previous studies indicate a research gap regarding tax aggressiveness and the factors that
influence it.

The results of this study are expected to provide benefits for various related parties, both
theoretical benefits and practical benefits. The theoretical benefit is that the results of this study
are expected to be able to prove the effect of gender diversity on the board, audit committee,
independent commissioner, and internal control on tax aggressiveness within the framework of

Page 3 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

agency theory. In addition, it is also expected to be a source of reference for further research on
tax aggressiveness. While the practical benefits for academics, this research is expected to provide
evidence regarding the effect of the Good Corporate Governance (GCG) mechanism in the form of
gender diversity on the board, audit committee, independent commissioner, and internal control
on tax aggressiveness. For companies, the results of this study are expected to provide information
to company management regarding tax aggressiveness actions so that they can be used as a basis
for consideration in making decisions and company policies. For investors, the results of this study
are expected to be taken into consideration in deciding investment so that investors can choose
the right company and type of investment. In addition, this research is also useful for regulators in
conducting inspections and supervision related to tax aggressiveness.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

This section discusses the theory, hypothesis development, and research framework used in this
study.

2.1. Agency theory

Jensen and Meckling (1976) stated that agency theory is an agreement between principal and
agent. Saraswati and Sujana (2017) state that the occurrence of agency conflict is due to informa­
tion asymmetry. The existence of information asymmetry because shareholders lack information
about the ability of managers, while managers know more about the company as a whole.
Managers with information overload will be compelled to misappropriate for their own sake.

In this study, agency theory serves to describe the gender diversity of the board, audit commit­
tee, independent commissioner, and internal control over tax aggressiveness. Shareholders strive
to ensure that the company meets the standards and laws and regulations through the presence
of a gender diversity board, audit committee, independent commissioner, and internal control.
Company managers prioritize the interests of the company to minimize tax payments, namely by
doing tax aggressiveness.

2.2. Tax aggressiveness

Novitasari et al. (2017) explains that tax aggressiveness is an action taken by a company to reduce
taxable income through tax planning actions both legally and illegally so that it can reduce the
company’s tax burden. Tax planning is legally called tax avoidance, which means an effort to
reduce the tax burden by taking advantage of loopholes in state tax provisions so that this action
does not violate tax provisions, while illegal tax planning is called tax evasion which means an
effort to reduce the tax burden by denying tax provisions.

2.3. Board gender diversity

In a company there are several people who occupy the positions of the board of directors and the
board of commissioners. The board in the company has some diversity, one of which is gender
diversity. Cortellese (2020) explains that diversity on the board of directors can allow companies to
choose broader insights regarding the company’s business for better decision making.

2.4. Audit committee

The audit committee is an additional committee established by the board of commissioners and is
responsible for assisting the board of commissioners in carrying out their duties and functions for
all operational activities of the company. A public company must have at least 3 (three) members
of the audit committee from inside and outside the company.

2.5. Independent commissioner

An independent commissioner is a board of commissioners who has no relationship with any
parties such as shareholders, directors, and other boards of commissioners that can affect their
independence in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. The Financial Services Authority
Regulation Number 33/POJK.04/2014 concerning the Board of Directors and Board of

Page 4 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

Commissioners of Issuers or Public Companies explains that a public company must have inde­
pendent commissioners of at least 30% of the total number of commissioners.

2.6. Internal control

Internal control is a company’s efforts that are influenced by management, the board of commis­
sioners, and other parties to achieve company goals in terms of effectiveness and efficiency of
company operations, financial reporting skills, and observance of regulations. According to the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of The Treadway Commission (COSO), the internal control
system has 5 (five) main components, namely control environment, risk assessment, control
activities, monitoring, and information and communication.

2.7. Hypothesis development

The company’s board is divided into a board of directors and a board of commissioners. One of the
diversity that exists in the council is gender diversity. Hudha and Utomo (2021) state that the
presence of women on the board of directors is important because they have a role to monitor the
company’s managerial performance. In addition, female directors strive to carry out their duties
and responsibilities to the company as well as possible so as to create fair behavior between the
community, the company and shareholders. The presence of women in the council has other
functions and roles in legal compliance, especially on taxation issues (Boussaidi & Hamed-Sidhom,
2020). Agency theory explains that there is a problem in the agency relationship that occurs
between company managers and shareholders, so that the board’s gender diversity can prevent
tax aggressiveness from being carried out by company managers. This research was supported by
Boussaidi and Hamed-Sidhom (2020), Suleiman et al. (2020), and Richardson and Lanis (2016) who
revealed that the gender diversity of the board had a negative effect on tax aggressiveness.

H1. Board gender diversity has a negative and significant effect on tax aggressiveness.

The audit committee is a committee that was established and has the responsibility to assist
the board of commissioners in carrying out their functions and duties for all company activities.
A public company has at least 3 (three) audit committee members. The number of members of the
audit committee can come from within the company and outside the company. Ratnawati et al.
(2019) states that the audit committee is responsible for ensuring that the company operates in
accordance with the laws and regulations, conducts business ethically, and implements control
over conflicts and fraud committed by company employees. According to agency theory, company
managers prioritize their personal interests, namely reducing the tax burden by carrying out tax
aggressiveness so that the existence of an audit committee can reduce company managers in
carrying out tax aggressiveness. This study was supported by Zheng et al. (2019) and Ginting and
Suryani (2018) prove that the audit committee has a significant negative effect on tax
aggressiveness.

H2. The audit committee has a negative and significant effect on tax aggressiveness.

An independent commissioner is a board of commissioners who has no affiliation or relation­

ship with any party that can affect the independence of the board of commissioners in carrying out
their obligations. Novitasari et al. (2017) stated that the presence of an independent commissioner
serves as a strict supervisor so that it can reduce company managers in carrying out tax aggres­
siveness. The reason company managers take tax aggressiveness is because of the company’s
interest to increase profits through reducing the company’s tax burden. Agency theory states that
there is an agency problem between company managers and shareholders. Shareholders form
independent commissioners with the aim of being monitors and supervisors so that the existence
of independent commissioners can prevent tax aggressiveness so that agency problems will be

Page 5 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

resolved. This research is supported by Novitasari et al. (2017) and research by Fadli et al. (2016)
which states that independent commissioners have a negative effect on tax aggressiveness.

H3. Independent commissioners have a negative and significant effect on tax aggressiveness.

Richardson and Lanis (2016) explain that female directors have high moral and ethical stan­
dards, are able to make the right decisions so as to increase board transparency, have independent
thinking, are more risk averse, and increase board trust. Agency theory explains the problem in
shareholder relations which seeks to make companies comply with laws and regulations by
presenting women on the board, while company managers strive to be able to pay taxes to
a minimum so that the presence of women on the board prevents companies from taking tax
aggressive actions.

An effective internal control system within the company guarantees that the company is
more compliant with the law, especially regarding the payment of corporate taxes so that tax
aggressiveness actions can be reduced. An effective internal control system can help the board’s
gender diversity so that companies will avoid tax aggressiveness. This shows that internal control
can moderate the negative effect of board gender diversity on tax aggressiveness.

H4. Internal controls strengthen the effect of the board’s gender diversity on tax aggressiveness.

Susanto et al. (2018) stated that a sufficient number of audit committees in a company is
expected to reduce tax aggressiveness which has the aim of reducing the company’s tax burden.
Agency theory shows that company managers tend to violate laws and regulations, especially
reducing the tax burden that must be paid by the company. Therefore, the existence of a sufficient
number of audit committees as a medium for supervising and monitoring company management
is expected to reduce tax aggressiveness by company managers.

The existence of an effective internal control system in the company guarantees that the
company is more obedient to the law, especially regarding tax payments so that the company’s tax
aggressiveness can decrease. The existence of internal control can support the audit committee so as
to prevent company managers from doing tax aggressiveness. This illustrates the role of internal
control that can moderate the negative influence of the audit committee on tax aggressiveness.

H5. Internal control strengthens the influence of the audit committee on tax aggressiveness.

Independent commissioners are concerned with the principles of good corporate governance
which consist of accountability, transparency, responsibility, and fairness. The existence of inde­
pendent commissioners aims to monitor the actions of company managers in carrying out all
company activities (Sari & Rahayu, 2020). Agency theory explains the presence of independent
commissioners in the company as an effort by shareholders to monitor and supervise the actions
of company managers, while company managers have a desire to take tax aggressiveness actions
to reduce the company’s tax burden so that the existence of independent commissioners who
carry out strict supervision can prevent company managers from committing tax aggressiveness.

An effective internal control system in the company can prove that the company’s compli­
ance with the law, especially tax payments, is increasing so that tax aggressiveness actions will
decrease. Internal control in the company can support the role of independent commissioners so
that the company’s tax aggressiveness can be suppressed. This shows that internal control can
moderate the negative effect of independent commissioners on tax aggressiveness.

Page 6 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

Figure 1. Research framework. Independent Variable

Board Gender Diversity H1

(X1)
Dependent Variable
H2
Audit Committee (X2) Tax Aggressiveness (Y)

H3

Independent Commissioners
(X3) H4 H5 H6

Internal Control (Z)

Moderating Variable

Control Variable

Company Size (X4)

Leverage (X5)

H6. Internal control strengthens the influence of independent commissioners on tax

aggressiveness.

2.8. Research framework

Figure 1 shows the research framework used in this study.

3. Research design

3.1. Sample and data description

The population used in this study are property, real estate, and building construction compa­
nies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) for the 2015–2020 period, while the sample
of this study was obtained by taking into account several criteria (Table 1). Data for each
variable in this study can be obtained from the annual reports and financial statements of each
company.

The type of data in this study is panel data. The selection of estimates and testing of the panel
data regression model must be done first before performing the regression analysis. Regression
analysis used is moderated regression analysis with Eviews 9.

3.2. Regression models

Equation 1 proves the effect of board gender diversity, audit committee, and independent com­
missioners on tax aggressiveness by using regression analysis.

CETR ¼ αþβ1 GENit þβ2 AUDit þβ3 INDPit þβ4 SIZEit þβ5 LEVit þe (1)

Equation 2 to prove the role of control in the relationship of gender diversity of the board, audit
committee, and independent commissioners to tax aggressiveness by using moderated regression
analysis.

Page 7 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

Table 1. Sampling criteria

Criteria Number of samples
Property, real estate, and building construction 99
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange
(IDX) for the 2015–2020 period
Property, real estate, and building construction (42)
companies that do not have research variable data
for 2015–2020
Property, real estate, and building construction (34)
companies with negative profits or losses in 2015–
2020
Companies that are the research sample 23
Observation year 6
Number of research analysis units during 2015–2020 138

Table 2. Variable definition and operationalization

Variable Definition and operationalization
CETR Tax aggressiveness, total tax payment divided by
earning before tax
GEN Board gender diversity, number of women on the
board divided number of board members
AUD Audit committee, number of audit committee
members
INDP Independent commissioners, number of independent
commissioners divided by number of commissioners
PI Internal control, used value of proportion with ratio
scale
SIZE Firm size, natural logarithm of total assets
LEV Leverage, total liabilities divided by total assets

CETR ¼ αþ1 GENit þ2 AUDit þβ3 INDPit þβ4 ðGEN � PIÞit þ

(2)
β5 ðAUD � PIÞit þ6 ðINDP � PIÞit þ7 SIZEit þβ8 LEVit þe

3.3. Measurement of variables

3.3.1. Dependent variable

The dependent variable in this study is tax aggressiveness. The measurement used in this study is
the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR). This proxy follows the research of Mawaddah and Darsono
(2022), Ahmadi and Rahman (2020), Bimo et al. (2019), Ratnawati et al. (2019), and Novitasari
et al. (2017), and Fadli et al. (2016), and Subagiastra et al. (2016).

Total Tax Payment

CETR ¼
Earning Before Tax

3.3.2. Independent variable

The independent variables in this study consisted of the gender diversity of the board (GEN), the
audit committee (AUD), and the independent commissioner (INDP). First, the board gender diver­
sity (GEN) uses a measurement that is dividing the number of women on the board by the number
of board members. This proxy is in line with Boussaidi and Hamed-Sidhom (2020), Cortellese
(2020), Suleiman et al. (2020), and Ambarsari et al. (2018). Second, the measurement of the

Page 8 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

audit committee (AUD) is by counting the number of members of the audit committee. This
measurement is in line with early research Zheng et al. (2019), Ratnawati et al. (2019), and
Susanto et al. (2018). Third, the independent commissioner proxy (INDP) is to divide the number
of independent commissioners by the number of commissioners. The proxy follows the research
conducted by Novitasari et al. (2017) and Fadli et al. (2016).

3.3.3. Moderating variable

The moderating variable in this study is internal control (PI). The measurement of internal control
is by using the valuation method. Companies that disclose information are given a score of 1, while
a score of 0 if the company does not disclose. To calculate the score of internal control using the
value of the proportion with a ratio scale. This measurement is in line with early research
Mawaddah and Darsono (2022), Carolina and Purwantini (2020), and Bimo et al. (2019).

3.3.4. Control variable

The control variables in this study are firm size (SIZE) and debt level (LEV). First, the proxy for
calculating firm size (SIZE) is the natural logarithm of total assets. This proxy follows the research
conducted by Ahmadi and Rahman (2020), Sari and Rahayu (2020), Ratnawati et al. (2019), and
Rohmansyah (2017), and Pinandhito and Juliarto (2016). Second, the measurement of leverage
(LEV) is dividing total liabilities by total assets. This measurement is in line with early Sari and
Rahayu (2020), Pinandhito and Juliarto (2016), and Fadli et al. (2016). Table 2 shows the definition
and operationalization of variables used in this study

4. Empirical results and discussions

4.1. Results

4.1.1. Descriptive statistics

Based on Table 3, it states that the average CETR value is 0.422496, the maximum value is
8.256961, the minimum value is 0.000000, and the standard deviation value is 0.830903. The
board gender diversity board has an average value of 0.154656, a maximum value of 0.428571,
a minimum value of 0.000000, and a standard deviation of 0.115411. The audit committee has an
average score of 3.079710, a maximum score of 6,000000, a minimum score of 2,000000, and
a standard deviation of 0.513491.

Independent commissioners have an average score of 0.386991, a maximum value of 0.666667,

a minimum value of 0.166667, and a standard deviation of 0.088115. Internal control has an
average value of 0.847826, a maximum value of 1.0000000, a minimum value of 0.600000, and
a standard deviation of 0.166640. Firm size has an average value of 29.74578, a maximum value of
31.85213, a minimum value of 27.23435, and a standard deviation of 1.124762. Leverage has an
average value of 0.450414, a maximum value of 0.853656, a minimum value of 0.041537, and
a standard deviation of 0.183569.

Table 3. Descriptive statistical analysis result

Variable Mean Max Min Std. Dev.
CETR 0.422496 8.256961 0.000000 0.830903
GEN 0.154656 0.428571 0.000000 0.115411
AUD 3.079710 6.000000 2.000000 0.513491
INDP 0.386991 0.666667 0.166667 0.088115
PI 0.847826 1.000000 0.600000 0.166640
SIZE 29.74578 31.85213 27.23435 1.124762
LEV 0.450414 0.853656 0.041537 0.183569

Page 9 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

4.1.2. Panel data regression model results

The estimated panel data regression models in this study include the Common Effect Model (CEM),
Fixed Effect Model (FEM), and Random Effect Model (REM). Based on the Chow test and the
Lagrange multiplier test, the best regression model is the Common Effect Model (CEM).

4.1.3. Classic assumption test

The results of the classical assumption test in this study indicate that the data are free from the
symptoms of multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, and autocorrelation.

4.1.4. Regression analysis results

4.1.5.6 Additional analysis. Tax aggressiveness as proxied by the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR)
shows that the frequency of CETR in the low category is 135 units of analysis, the medium category
is 2 units of analysis, and the high category is 1 unit of analysis.
Board gender diversity shows that the frequency of board gender diversity in the low category is
73 units of analysis, the medium category is 47 units of analysis, and the high category is 18 units
of analysis. The gender diversity of the board in the low category is 73 units of analysis consisting
of 70 units of analysis with a CETR value in the low category, 2 units of analysis with a CETR value
in the medium category, and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the high category. The gender
diversity of the board which is in the medium category, which is 47 units of analysis, has a CETR
score in the low category. The gender diversity of the board which is in the high category as many
as 18 units of analysis has a CETR value in the low category.

The audit committee shows that the frequency of audit committees in the low category is 125
units of analysis, the middle category is 9 units of analysis, and the high category is 4 units of
analysis. The audit committee in the low category is 125 units of analysis consisting of 123 units of
analysis with a CETR value in the low category, 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium
category, and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the high category. The audit committee in the
medium category is 9 units of analysis consisting of 8 units of analysis with a CETR value in the low
category and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category. The audit committee in
the high category, namely 4 units of analysis, has a CETR value in the low category.

The independent commissioner stated that the frequency of independent commissioners in the low
category was 72 units of analysis, the medium category was 62 units of analysis, and the high
category was 4 units of analysis. Independent commissioners who are in the low category are 72
units of analysis consisting of 71 units of analysis with a CETR value in the low category and 1 unit of
analysis with a CETR value in the high category. Independent commissioners who are in the medium
category are 62 units of analysis consisting of 60 units of analysis with a CETR value in the low
category and 2 units of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category. Independent commis­
sioners who are in the high category, namely 4 units of analysis have a CETR value in the low category.

Internal control shows that the frequency of internal control in the low category is 35 units of
analysis, the medium category is 35 units of analysis, and the high category is 68 units of analysis.
Internal control in the low category is 35 units of analysis consisting of 34 units of analysis with
a CETR value in the low category and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category.
Internal control in the medium category is 35 units of analysis consisting of 34 units of analysis
with a CETR value in the low category and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the high category.
Internal control in the high category is 68 units of analysis consisting of 67 units of analysis with
a CETR value in the low category and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category.

Firm size shows that the frequency of firm size in the low category is 31 units of analysis, the
medium category is 60 units of analysis, and the high category is 47 units of analysis. The firm size
that is in the low category as many as 31 units of analysis has a CETR value in the low category.
The firm size in the medium category is 60 units of analysis consisting of 59 units of analysis with
a CETR value in the low category and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category.

Page 10 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

The firm size that is in the high category is 47 units of analysis consisting of 45 units of analysis
with a CETR value in the low category, 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category,
and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the high category.

The leverage shows that the frequency of debt levels in the low category is 30 units of analysis,
the medium category is 71 units of analysis, and the high category is 37 units of analysis. The
leverage in the low category, which is 30 units of analysis, has a CETR value in the low category.
The leverage in the medium category is 71 units of analysis consisting of 70 units of analysis with
a CETR value in the low category and 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category.
The leverage in the high category is 37 units of analysis consisting of 35 units of analysis with
a CETR value in the low category, 1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the medium category, and
1 unit of analysis with a CETR value in the high category.

4.2. Discussions

4.2.1. The effect of board gender diversity on tax aggressiveness

Based on Table 4, it can be concluded that the board gender diversity has a negative and
significant effect on tax aggressiveness. So the first hypothesis received in this research (see at
table 5). Most of these companies have a low level of board gender diversity, meaning that the
number of female boards in the company’s board of directors is still small, so companies take
advantage of this condition to carry out tax aggressiveness. This is evidenced by the average value
of the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) for property, real estate, and building construction companies
in the low category, meaning that the company has a high level of tax aggressiveness. In addition,

Table 4. Moderated regression analysis results

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C −2.662763 1.811069 −1.470272 0.1439
GEN −1.760799 0.607868 −2.896681 0.0044
AUD −0.085640 0.137925 −0.620916 0.5357
INDP −0.541100 0.785447 −0.688908 0.4921
GEN*PI −0.005090 3.691255 −0.001379 0.9989
AUD*PI 0.201683 0.744000 0.271080 0.7867
INDP*PI −2.573566 4.769599 −0.539577 0.5904
SIZE 0.126128 0.066406 1.899348 0.0597
LEV 1.265964 0.411683 3.075093 0.0026

Table 5. Summary of hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Result
H1: Board gender diversity has a negative and Received
significant effect on tax aggressiveness.
H2: The audit committee has a negative and Rejected
significant effect on tax aggressiveness.
H3: Independent commissioners have a negative and Rejected
significant effect on tax aggressiveness.
H4: Internal controls strengthen the effect of the Rejected
board’s gender diversity on tax aggressiveness.
H5: Internal control strengthens the influence of the Rejected
audit committee on tax aggressiveness.
H6: Internal control strengthens the influence of Rejected
independent commissioners on tax aggressiveness.

Page 11 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

the number of companies with a low level of board gender diversity in the low category is 73 units
of analysis, of which 70 units of analysis have CETR values in the low category. The low gender
diversity of the board accompanied by a low CETR value indicates that the company has a high
level of tax aggressiveness.

The results in this study are in accordance with agency theory which states that in a company
there is an agency problem between company managers and shareholders. Company managers
are concerned that the company’s expenses related to tax payments can be minimized by carrying
out tax aggressiveness to reduce the company’s tax burden. Then, shareholders try to prevent the
company from committing violations such as tax aggressiveness by presenting women in the
composition of the board.

This finding agrees with the research conducted by Boussaidi and Hamed-Sidhom (2020),
Suleiman et al. (2020), and Richardson and Lanis (2016) revealed that the board’s gender diversity
has a negative effect on tax aggressiveness. However, the findings in this study contradict the
research conducted by Duong and Pallasch (2021) and Cortellese (2020) stated that the gender
diversity of the board has no effect on tax aggressiveness.

4.2.2. The effect of audit committee on tax aggressiveness

Based on Table 4 shows that the audit committee has no effect on tax aggressiveness. Most of
these companies have a low level of audit committee, meaning that the number of audit commit­
tee members in the company is still small. So the second hypothesis rejected in this research (see
at table 5). The average value of the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) for companies with less than 3
(three) audit committees is 0.398342, while companies with more than 3 (three) audit committees
is 0.654759. These results state that the number of audit committees in the company cannot
affect the level of tax aggressiveness because the average Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) of
0.398342 and 0.654759 are in the low category so that the company has a high level of tax
aggressiveness.

Companies that have an audit committee level in the low, medium, and high categories still
have a CETR score in the low category. These results state that the small or large number of audit
committees in companies cannot prevent tax aggressiveness. This finding does not agree with the
agency theory statement which reveals that there are differences in interests between company
managers and shareholders. Company managers are more concerned with obtaining personal
benefits, namely so that the company’s expenses in paying taxes are not too much so that
company managers take tax aggressiveness actions, while shareholders seek to form an audit
committee with sufficient numbers in order to monitor the activities of company managers more
effectively so as not to violate the regulations. legislation. However, the supervision and monitoring
carried out by the audit committee has not been effective so that the existence of an audit
committee cannot reduce the level of corporate tax aggressiveness. Therefore, the existence of
an audit committee does not affect tax aggressiveness.

The results of this study are in line with research conducted by Ratnawati et al. (2019) and
Susanto et al. (2018) which reveals that the audit committee has no effect on tax aggressiveness.
This result contradicts the research conducted by Zheng et al. (2019) and Ginting and Suryani
(2018) which states that the audit committee has a negative effect on tax aggressiveness.

4.2.3. The effect of independent commissioners on tax aggressiveness

Based on Table 4 shows that the independent commissioner has no effect on tax aggressiveness.
Most of these companies have a low level of independent commissioners, meaning that the
number of independent commissioners on the board of commissioners is still small. So the third
hypothesis rejected in this research (see at table 5). The average value of the Cash Effective Tax
Rate (CETR) in companies with an independent commissioner percentage of less than 30% is
0.344140, while companies with an independent commissioner percentage of more than 30% is

Page 12 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

0.427964. These results indicate that the number of independent commissioners in the composi­
tion of the board of commissioners does not affect tax aggressiveness because the average Cash
Effective Tax Rate (CETR) is 0.344140 and 0.427964 is in the low category so that the company has
a high level of tax aggressiveness.

Companies that have independent commissioners in the low, medium, and high categories still
have a CETR score in the low category. These results indicate that the small or large number of
independent commissioners is not able to prevent tax aggressiveness. The findings in this study
are not in line with agency theory which explains that there are differences between company
management and shareholders which can lead to agency problems. This problem occurs because
the company’s management is trying to take tax aggressiveness actions, while shareholders are
trying to prevent actions that violate laws and regulations such as tax aggressiveness. However,
the supervision of independent commissioners is less strict and firm so that the presence of
independent commissioners cannot prevent tax aggressiveness. Therefore, the presence of inde­
pendent commissioners has no effect on tax aggressiveness carried out by company managers.

This finding agrees with research conducted by Ginting and Suryani (2018) and Susanto, dkk.
(2018) which explains that independent commissioners have no effect on tax aggressiveness. This
finding contradicts the research conducted by Boussaidi and Hamed-Sidhom (2020) and Wahab
et al. (2017) which states that independent commissioners have a positive influence on tax
aggressiveness. Research conducted by Novitasari et al. (2017) and Fadli et al. (2016) revealed
that independent commissioners have a negative influence on tax aggressiveness.

4.2.4. Internal control moderates the effect of board gender diversity on tax aggressiveness
Based on Table 4, it states that internal control does not moderate either strengthen or weaken
the effect of the board’s gender diversity on tax aggressiveness. So the fourth hypothesis rejected
in this research (see at table 5). Support for this research is that companies with a low level of
board gender diversity have an average internal control value of 0.834091 and an average Cash
Effective Tax Rate (CETR) of 0.541355, while companies with a high level of board gender diversity
has an average internal control value of 0.872000 and an average Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR)
of 0.213308. These results prove that the high or low level of gender diversity of the board is not
affected by the effectiveness of internal control or not. Companies with effective internal controls,
both with low and high levels of board gender diversity, will continue to carry out tax aggressive­
ness. The majority of property, real estate, and building construction companies have board gender
diversity scores in the low category and internal control scores in the high category, but these
companies still have a low Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) value. These results indicate that
companies with low board gender diversity will continue to take tax aggressiveness actions,
even though the company has high internal control so that the effectiveness of internal control
is not able to influence the relationship of board gender diversity to tax aggressiveness.

This finding contradicts agency theory, where shareholders can better prevent the behavior of
corporate managers from taking tax aggressive actions by presenting board gender diversity and
increasing the effectiveness of internal controls. However, this is not appropriate because internal
control does not play a role in moderating the effect of the board’s gender diversity on tax
aggressiveness. Internal control as a moderating variable cannot moderate the effect of the
board’s gender diversity on tax aggressiveness. The company in presenting the gender diversity
of the board is not affected by the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls. Therefore, the
existence of gender diversity in the board can reduce actions that violate laws and regulations
such as tax aggressiveness without considering the effectiveness of internal controls. Based on this
description, it can be concluded that internal control is not able to strengthen or weaken the
relationship between the gender diversity of the board and tax aggressiveness.

Page 13 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

4.2.5. Internal control moderates the effect of the audit committee on tax aggressiveness
Based on Table 4 proves that internal control does not moderate either strengthen or weaken the
relationship of the audit committee to tax aggressiveness. So the fifth hypothesis rejected in this research
(see at table 5). Evidence that supports this research is that companies with low audit committee levels
have an average internal control value of 0.852800 and an average Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) of
0.398342, while companies with a high audit committee level have the average value of internal control
is 0.800000 and the average value of the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) is 0.654759. These results
indicate that the low or high level of the audit committee is not affected by the effectiveness of the
company’s internal control. Companies with effective internal control, both with low and high levels of
audit committees, will still carry out tax aggressiveness to reduce company expenses in fulfilling tax
payment obligations. The majority of property, real estate, and building construction companies have
audit committee scores in the low category and internal control scores in the high category, but these
companies still have the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) in the low category. These results indicate that
companies with low audit committees will continue to carry out tax aggressiveness, even though these
companies have high internal control so that the effectiveness of internal control cannot affect the
relationship of the audit committee to tax aggressiveness.

This result is not in line with the agency theory statement which states that the behavior of
corporate managers in implementing tax aggressiveness can be further reduced by a sufficient
number of audit committees and effective internal control. However, this is contradictory because
internal control does not play a role in strengthening or weakening the influence of the audit
committee on tax aggressiveness. Internal control as a moderator cannot strengthen or weaken
the relationship of the audit committee to corporate tax aggressiveness. The company in forming
the audit committee is not affected by the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls.
Therefore, the existence of a sufficient number of audit committees can prevent companies
from carrying out tax aggressiveness without paying attention to the effectiveness of internal
controls. Based on this explanation, it can be concluded that the effectiveness of internal control is
not able to moderate the relationship of the audit committee to tax aggressiveness.

4.2.6. Internal control moderates the influence of independent commissioners on tax

aggressiveness
Based on Table 4, it states that internal control does not moderate either strengthen or weaken the
relationship of independent commissioners to tax aggressiveness. So the sixth hypothesis rejected in this
research (see at table 5). Support for this research is that companies with low levels of independent
commissioners have an average internal control value of 0.688889 and an average Cash Effective Tax
Rate (CETR) of 0.344140, while companies with high levels of independent commissioners have an
average value of The average value of internal control is 0.858915 and the average value of the Cash
Effective Tax Rate (CETR) is 0.427964. These results indicate that companies with effective or ineffective
internal controls and have high or low levels of independent commissioners will continue to carry out tax
aggressiveness. The majority of property, real estate, and building construction companies have inde­
pendent commissioners in the low category and internal control scores in the high category, but these
companies still have the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) in the low category. These results indicate that
companies with low independent commissioners will continue to take tax aggressiveness actions, even
though these companies have high internal control so that the effectiveness of internal control is not able
to affect the relationship of independent commissioners to tax aggressiveness.

The results of this study contradict agency theory, where shareholders can further suppress the
behavior of company managers in taking tax aggressiveness actions by presenting independent
commissioners and increasing the effectiveness of internal control. However, this is not appro­
priate because internal control does not play a role in moderating the relationship of independent
commissioners to tax aggressiveness. Internal control as a moderating variable is not able to
moderate the relationship of independent commissioners to tax aggressiveness. Companies in
presenting independent commissioners are not affected by the effectiveness of the company’s
internal controls. Therefore, the existence of an independent commissioner in the composition of

Page 14 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

the board of commissioners can prevent the occurrence of tax aggressiveness without considering
the effectiveness of internal control or not. Based on this description, it can be concluded that
internal control cannot strengthen or weaken the influence of independent commissioners on tax
aggressiveness.

5. Conclusion
This study shows that the board gender diversity has a negative and significant effect on tax aggres­
siveness. This study also states that the audit committee and independent commissioners have no effect
on tax aggressiveness. In addition, this study also proves that internal control cannot moderate the effect
of gender diversity on the board, audit committee, and independent commissioners on tax aggressive­
ness. This study also finds that several property, real estate, and building construction companies in
Indonesia have higher tax payments than pre-tax profits. This condition causes the measurement of tax
aggressiveness using the Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) to be reconsidered.

Theoretical benefits from the results of this study prove that there is an effect of gender diversity
on the board of commissioners on tax aggressiveness within the framework of agency theory. So
that it can be used as a reference source for further research on tax aggressiveness. While the
practical benefits for academics, this research can provide evidence regarding the effect of the
Good Corporate Governance (GCG) mechanism in the form of gender diversity on the board of
commissioners on tax aggressiveness. For companies, the results of this study are expected to
provide information to company management regarding tax aggressiveness actions so that they
can be used as a basis for consideration in making decisions and company policies. This research is
useful for the company’s management to determine a strategy for carrying out tax aggressive­
ness. For investors, the results of this study can be taken into consideration in making investment
decisions so that investors can choose the right company and type of investment. In addition, this
research is also useful for regulators in conducting inspections and supervision related to tax
aggressiveness.

The limitation of this research is that the measurement used on the internal control variable uses an
assessment method that is sourced from a subjective assessment, meaning that all of this assessment is
carried out based on the personal opinion of the researcher. Suggestions that can be given regarding the
results of this study are for the company to be more careful and alert to tax aggressiveness actions and
can increase the percentage of board gender diversity because it can reduce tax aggressiveness actions
taken by company management. For further researchers, it can combine internal and external factors of
the company and use other factors that may affect tax aggressiveness. In addition, further researchers
can use other proxies to measure the tax aggressiveness variable.

Funding and independent commissioner on tax aggressiveness,

The authors received no direct funding for this research. Nanik Sri Utaminingsih, Dini Kurniasih, Maylia Pramono
Sari & Monica Rahardian Ary Helmina, Cogent Business &
Author details Management (2022), 9: 2122333.
Nanik Sri Utaminingsih1
E-mail: [email protected] References
Dini Kurniasih1 Ahmadi, I. S., & Rahman, A. (2020). Pengaruh faktor
Maylia Pramono Sari2 keuangan dan non keuangan terhadap tindakan
Monica Rahardian Ary Helmina3 penghindaran pajak. Proceeding of National
1
Akuntansi, Universitas Negeri Semarang Fakultas Conference on Accounting & Finance, 2, 86–97.
Ekonomi, Semarang, Jawa Tengah 50229,Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.20885/ncaf.vol2.art8
2
Accounting, Universitas Negeri Semarang Fakultas Ambarsari, D., Pratomo, D., Akuntansi, P. S., & Telkom, U.
Ekonomi, Indonesia. (2018). Pengaruh Ukuran Dewan Komisaris, gender
3
Accounting, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Fakultas diversity pada Dewan, dan Kualitas auditor Eksternal
Ekonomi, Indonesia. terhadap Agresivitas Pajak (Studi pada Perusahaan
Sektor Property dan Real Estate yang Terdaftar di
Disclosure statement Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2013-2017). Jurnal Aset
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). (Akuntansi Riset), 10(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.
17509/jaset.v10i2.14991
Citation information Bimo, I. D., Prasetyo, C. Y., & Susilandari, C. A. (2019). The
Cite this article as: The role of internal control in the effect of internal control on tax avoidance: The case
relationship of board gender diversity, audit committee, of Indonesia. Journal of Economics and Development,

Page 15 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

21(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/jed-10-2019- Ekonomi Universitas Riau, 4(1), 1901–1914. https://

0042 www.neliti.com/publications/185827/pengaruh-man
Boussaidi, A., & Hamed-Sidhom, M. (2020). Board’s char­ ajemen-laba-corporate-governance-dan-intensitas-
acteristics, ownership’s nature and corporate tax modal-terhadap-agres
aggressiveness: New evidence from the Tunisian Pinandhito, A. K., & Juliarto, A. (2016). Pengaruh
context. EuroMed Journal of Business, 16(4), 487–511. Pengendalian Internal, Kualitas Auditor,
https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-04-2020-0030 Independensi Komite Audit, Ukuran Perusahaan, Dan
Carolina, V., & Purwantini, A. H. (2020). Pengaruh Leverage Terhadap Agresivitas Pajak. Diponegoro
Pengendalian Internal, Struktur Kepemilikan, Sales Journal of Accounting, 5(4), 1–15. https://ejournal3.
Growth, Ketidakpastian Lingkungan, dan Koneksi undip.ac.id/index.php/accounting/article/view/25737
Politik terhadap tax avoidance (Studi Empiris pada Ratnawati, V., Wahyunir, N., & Abduh, A. (2019). The
Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di BEI effect of institutional ownership, board of commis­
Periode 2015-2019). Business and Economics sioners, audit committee on tax Aggressiveness; firm
Conference in Utilization of Modern Technology, 154. size as a moderating variable. International Journal
Cortellese, F. (2020). Gender board composition and tax of Business and Economy, 1(2), 103–114. http://
aggressiveness in public listed companies. myjms.moe.gov.my/index.php/ijbec
Copenhagen Business School, CBS Law Research Republika, C. I. (2016). PPATK mulai teliti pengusaha di
Paper, 20(27). panama papers. Retrieved January 20, 2022 from
Duong, L., & Pallasch, P. (2021). An examination of female https://nasional.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/
CEOs and corporate tax aggressiveness. An hukum/16/04/06/o57ak0394-ppatk-mulai-teliti-
Interactive Effects, 1(1), 39–51. Retrieved from pengusaha-di-panama-papers
https://fortunepublishing.org/index.php/aoe/article/ Richardson, G., & Lanis, T. R. (2016). Women on the board
view/46 of directors and corporate tax aggressiveness in
Fadli, I., Ratnawati, V., & Kurnia, P. (2016). Pengaruh Australia:An empirical analysis grant Richardson
Likuiditas, Leverage, Komisaris Independen, Grantley Taylor roman lanis article. Emerald.Com, 21
Manajemen laba, Dan Kepemilikan Institusional (2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Terhadap Agresivitas Pajak PerusahaaN (Studi pada 10309610810905944
perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Rohmansyah, B. (2017). DETERMINAN KINERJA
Indonesia periode 2011-2013. Jurnal Online PERUSAHAAN TERHADAP AGRESIVITAS PAJAK (studi
Mahasiswa Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Riau, 3(1), pada perusahaan sektor perbankan yang terdaftar di
1205–1219. https://www.neliti.com/id/publications/ Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2010-2014).
132452/pengaruh-likuiditas-leverage-komisaris-inde Competitive Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 1(1), 21.
penden-manajemen-labadan-kepemilikan https://doi.org/10.31000/competitive.v1i1.106
Ginting, N. M. R., & Suryani, E. (2018). The Effect of Earnings Saraswati, G. A. R. S., & Sujana, I. K. (2017). Pengaruh
management and corporate governance to tax aggres­ pajak, mekanisme bonus, dan tunneling incentive
siveness (case study of telecommunication company pada indikasi melakukan transfer pricing. E-Jurnal
listed in Indonesian stock exchange 2012-2016). Akuntansi, 19(2), 1000–1029.
E-Proceeding of Management, 5(2), 2286–2293. https:// Sari, C. D., & Rahayu, Y. (2020). Pengaruh Likuiditas,
openlibrarypublications.telkomuniversity.ac.id/index. Leverage, Ukuran Perusahaan Dan Komisaris
php/management/article/view/6823 Independen Terhadap Agresivitas Pajak. Jurnal Ilmu
Hudha, B., & Utomo, D. C. (2021). Pengaruh Ukuran Dan Riset Akuntansi, 9(2), 1–19. http://jurnalmaha
Dewan Direksi, Komisaris Independen, Keragaman siswa.stiesia.ac.id/index.php/jira/article/view/2796
Gender, Dan Kompensasi Eksekutif Terhadap Subagiastra, K., Arizona, I. P. E., & Mahapu, I. N. K. A. (2016).
Penghindaran Pajak Perusahaan. Diponegoro Journal Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Kepemilikan Keluarga, Dan
of Accounting, 10(1), 1–10. https://ejournal3.undip.ac. Good Corporate Governance Terhadap Penghindaran
id/index.php/accounting/article/view/30186/25089 Pajak. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, 1(2), 167–193. https://
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/JIA/article/view/
Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership 9994
structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 283–303. Suleiman, M., Lawal, L., Adisa, A. O., & Mohammed, A.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817410.023 (2020). Institutional ownership, gender board diver­
Kontan, C. I. (2021). Sri Mulyani: Sepanjang 2020 pener­ sification and corporate tax aggressiveness: Evidence
imaan pajak minus 19,7%. PT Grahanusa Mediatama. from conglomerates companies in Nigeria. 3rd CITN
Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://nasional. Annual International Academic Conference on
kontan.co.id/news/sri-mulyani-sepanjang-2020- Taxation on the Theme: “Taxation, Social Contract and
penerimaan-pajak-minus-197 Economic Development” .
Mawaddah, S. Z., & Darsono. (2022). Pengaruh Susanto, L., Yanti, Y., & Viriany, V. (2018). Faktor-faktor
Pengendalian Internal, Kepemilikan Keluarga, Dan yang mempengaruhi agresivitas pajak. Jurnal
Ketidakpastian Lingkungan (Studi Empiris Pada Ekonomi, 23(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.24912/je.
Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek v23i1.330
Indonesia Periode 2017-2019). Diponegoro Journal of Wahab, E. A. A., Ariff, A. M., Marzuki, M. M., & Sanusi, Z.-M.
Accounting,11, 1–11. https://ejournal3.undip.ac.id/ (2017). Political Connections, Corporate Governance,
index.php/accounting/article/view/33892 And Tax Aggressiveness In Malaysia. Toxicology
Novitasari, S., Ratnawati, V., & Silfi, A. (2017). Pengaruh Mechanisms and Methods, 24(9), 627–632. https://
Manajemen Laba, Corporate Governance, Dan doi.org/10.3109/15376516.2014.945107
Intensitas Modal Terhadap Agresivitas Pajak Zheng, T., Jiang, W., Zhao, P., Jiang, J., & Wang, N. (2019).
Perusahaan (Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan Property Will the audit committee affects tax aggressiveness?
dan Real Estate yang Terdaftar di BEI Periode Tahun Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
2010-2014). Jurnal Online Mahasiswa Fakultas 1007/978-3-319-93351-1_102

Page 16 of 17
Sri Utaminingsih et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2122333
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2122333

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 17 of 17