Penghindaran Pajak, Karakteristik Dewan Komisaris dan Cost Stickiness
Abstract
This study aims to examine the relationship between tax avoidance and cost stickiness. This study also tests whether the relationship between tax avoidance and cost stickiness varies with the characteristics of the board of commissioners. The characteristics of the board of commissioners used are the size of the board of commissioners and the educational background of the board of commissioners. The study was conducted on listed firms on Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017. The results showed that there was a positive relationship between tax avoidance and cost stickiness. This study did not find enough evidence that the relationship between tax avoidance and stickiness costs was more positive in firms with a small size of the board of commissioners compared to large ones. Firms with a small size of board of commissioners indeed show anti-sticky costs and tax avoidance is not related to cost stickiness, but firms with a large board of commissioners show that there is a positive relationship between tax avoidance and cost stickiness. This study also found that in groups with small proportions of economic education / business background of board members there was a positive relationship between tax avoidance and cost stickiness, whereas in large groups there was no cost stickiness and found no relationship between tax avoidance and cost stickiness.
Downloads
References
Balakrishnan, R., Petersen, M. J., & Soderstrom, N. S. (2004). Does Capacity Utilization Affect the “Stickiness” of Cost? Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 19(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X0401900303
Banker, R. D., & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric Cost Behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 43–79. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2312779
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Chen, L. T. (2013). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.08.003
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., Ciftci, M., & Mashruwala, R. (2014). The Moderating Effect of Prior Sales Changes on Asymmetric Cost Behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50726
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Threinen, L. (2013). Determinants of International Differences in Asymmetric Cost Behavior. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2312772
Brüggen, A., & Zehnder, J. O. (2014). SG&A cost stickiness and equity-based executive compensation: does empire building matter? Journal of Management Control, 25(3–4), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-014-0195-5
Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001
Chen, C. X., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2012). The Agency Problem, Corporate Governance, and the Asymmetrical Behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative Costs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 252–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01094.x
Dierynck, B., Landsman, W. R., & Renders, A. (2012). Do managerial incentives drive cost behavior? Evidence about the role of the zero earnings benchmark for labor cost behavior in private Belgian firms. Accounting Review, 87(4), 1219–1246. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50153
Dyreng, S. D., Hanlon, M., & Maydew, E. L. (2008). Long-Run Corporate Tax Avoidance. The Accounting Review, 83(1), 61–82.
Edwards, A., Schwab, C., & Shevlin, T. (2016). Financial constraints and cash tax savings. Accounting Review, 91(3), 859–881. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51282
Gallemore, J., & Labro, E. (2015). The importance of the internal information environment for tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.005
Hanlon, M., & Heitzman, S. (2010). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50(2–3), 127–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.002
Homburg, C., & Nasev, J. (2008). How timey are earnings when costs are sticky? implications for the link between conditional conservatism and cost stickiness.
Ibrahim, A. E. A. (2018). Board characteristics and asymmetric cost behavior: evidence from Egypt. Accounting Research Journal, 31(2), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-11-2015-0148
Jeanjean, T., & Stolowy, H. (2009). Determinants of board members’ financial expertise - Empirical evidence from France. International Journal of Accounting, 44(4), 378–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2009.09.002
Kama, I., & Weiss, D. (2013). Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs? Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00471.x
Li, W. L., & Zheng, K. (2017). Product market competition and cost stickiness. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 49(2), 283–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-016-0591-z
Mojdehi, M. F. (2017). Real Earnings Management in Organization and the Behavior of Cost Stickiness : Empirical Evidence from Iranian Companies. International Academic Journal of Accounting and Financial Management, 4(4), 6–26.
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1994). Politicians and Firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118354
Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. Accounting Review, 85(4), 1441–1471. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1441
Xu, S., & Zheng, K. (2018). Tax Avoidance and Asymmetric Cost Behavior. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X18793757
Xue, S., & Hong, Y. (2016). Earnings management, corporate governance and expense stickiness. China Journal of Accounting Research, 9(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2015.02.001
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Perspektif Akuntansi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License
