%201908-1923.fld/image001.png){kind=small}
%201908-1923.fld/image002.png){kind=small}
COMPULSORY TAX OBJECTIVES REVIEWED FROM
FACTORS AFFECTING PERSONAL PEOPLE IN PAYING TAXES: CASE STUDY ON DINAS TENAGA KERJA KOTA
SURABAYA
Devi Permata Sari
Faculty of Economics
and Business, Universitas Pembangunan
National "Veteran" Jawa Timur, Indonesia
Email: s[email protected]
|
KEYWORDS awareness, knowledge, administrative sanctions,
service, modernization, taxpayer compliance |
ABSTRACT This study aims to analyze the influence of awareness of Taxpayers,
Taxpayer knowledge, administrative sanctions, tax apparatus services,
modernization of taxation system on taxpayer compliance at the Office of Manpower
of Surabaya city. The data of this study were obtained from Questionnaire
(Primary). Data analysis used are Validity Test, Reability Test, Normality
Test, Outer Model Testing (Measurement Model), Structural Model Testing
(Inner Model). The result of this research is partially awareness of Taxpayer
only does not have an effect on compliance, Taxpayer's knowledge only
influence to compliance, administrative sanction only does not have an effect
on compliance, Tax Apparatus service does not have an effect on compliance,
modernization of tax system alone does not influence to compliance. |
INTRODUCTION
Taxes in Indonesia are very
important because most of the country's development funding comes from taxes.
To support state revenues, Taxpayer (WP) compliance is required.It is no secret that the level of taxpayer compliance in
Indonesia is not high (Diamastuti, 2016). Facts on the ground show that not all taxpayers comply and
pay taxes in accordance with applicable regulations. There are various motives
used by taxpayers, from reluctance to report the real assets they own, to
reluctance to visit the tax service office in order to fulfill their tax
reporting obligations (Kusuma, 2018).
As quoted in databoks.katadata.co.id on December 22 2016,
the overall taxpayer (WP) compliance ratio for both civil servants and
non-civil servants in submitting Annual Tax Returns (SPT) in 2016 only reached
62.28 percent. Data from the Ministry of Finance shows that there are 32.77
million registered taxpayers, while those required to submit SPTs reach 20.17
million taxpayers. However, the actual SPT received by the tax office was only
12.56 million taxpayers.
%201908-1923.fld/image004.png)
Figure 1. Taxpayers Compulsory SPT and Compliance Submit SPT 2012- Nov
2016
Source: databoks.katadata.co.id
The Director General of Taxes
has prepared various strategies to achieve the target. One of them is through
collaboration with various ministries (Bisnis.com on March 3 2016). Ken Dwijugiasteadi said
that his party has collaborated with the Ministry of State Apparatus
Empowerment and bureaucratic reform to ensure that civil servants, police and
military report their annual SPT by e-filling.In accordance with the rules contained in the circular decision
of the Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment no. 24 of 2012, the TNI/Polri
and ASN are obliged to complete their taxes. To make this easier, there is
E-filling (tax reporting).
Executive Director of the
Center for Indonesia Taxation Analysis, Yustinus Prastowo, stated that tax collection from individuals is the
sector with the most potential for extensification and intensification (www.pajak.go.id March 23, 2016). The government must make breakthroughs, especially in the medium term,
to ensure the achievement of tax revenue targets.
In general, compliance
with paying taxes in the City of Heroes cannot be said to be bad. Regional
Office of the Directorate General of Taxes, East Java I, recorded a compliance
ratio in 2015 of 72.67% (http://finansial.bisnis.com March 2 2016). This percentage is equivalent to 267,746
Taxpayers who reported notification letters (SPT). The figure of hundreds of
thousands of taxpayers is part of the 368,437 taxpayers who are required to
report SPT. Overall, in Surabaya there were 611,216 registered taxpayers last
year.
The level of taxpayer compliance is influenced by many
factors, including: the amount of income, the tax rate, the taxpayer's
perception of the use of tax money, tax treatment, implementation of law
enforcement, the severity (light) of tax sanctions, and the completeness and
accuracy of the database (www.pajak.go.id July 4, 2012). There
are several variables that influence individual taxpayers in paying taxes in
the research of Alfianti Cahyo (2014), Devi (2015) and Tanzila (2012). From the
research variables there is an influence of awareness in paying taxes, while in
Monica's research (2019) shows that there is no influence of Taxpayer awareness on Taxpayer
compliance.
Research on tax knowledge conducted by Alfianto Cahyo (2014) and Tanzila (2012)
shows that there is an influence on taxpayer compliance, while research
conducted by Monica (2015) has no influence on taxpayer compliance. Oktaviane
(2012) and Monica (2015) show the influence between tax sanctions and taxpayer
compliance.
Research conducted by
Tanzila (2012) and Kirana (2013) shows that there is an influence between tax
authorities' services and taxpayer compliance, while research conducted by
Oktaviane (2012), Yeyen (2012), Monica (2019) shows
the opposite that there is no influence. between tax apparatus services and
taxpayer compliance. Research conducted by Monica (2019) regarding
Taxpayer perceptions regarding the tax administration system on Taxpayer
compliance shows that there is an influence on Taxpayer compliance.
The results of the research described above show a contradiction
with the research, so the researchers returned using the same variables, but in
different places. This was done because they wanted to know taxpayer compliance
in paying taxes at the Surabaya City Manpower DepartmentThe topic of this research is an
analysis of the fulfillment of tax obligations on taxpayer compliance in the
Surabaya City Manpower Office.
This research was conducted
at the Surabaya City Government Manpower Service, which is the researcher's
work place. One of the benefits of this research is to consider decision making
in the researcher's workplace.
Based on the development of existing data, it can be said
that the level of compliance of taxpayers who work in the East Java region is
still low, in the city of Surabaya itself, the increase from the previous year
is not significant. Therefore, this research raises the title of Taxpayer
Compliance in terms of individual factors in paying taxes which influence the
Surabaya City Manpower Service.
The purpose of this
research is to examine individual taxpayer compliance in terms of factors that
influence individuals in fulfilling tax obligations. There are;
(1) testing
the influence of Taxpayer awareness on individual Taxpayer compliance at the
Surabaya City Manpower Service, (2) testing
the influence of Taxpayer knowledge on individual Taxpayer compliance at the
Surabaya City Manpower Service, (3) testing
the effect of tax sanctions on individual taxpayer compliance with the Surabaya
City Manpower Service, (4) testing
the influence of tax apparatus services on individual taxpayer compliance at
the Surabaya City Manpower Service, and (5) testing the effect of
modernization of the tax system on individual taxpayer compliance at the
Surabaya City Manpower Service.
RESEARCH
METHOD
Research
Types and Designs
To prove the hypothesis
whether Individual Taxpayer compliance is reviewed from Taxpayer awareness,
Taxpayer knowledge, tax sanctions, Tax Apparatus services, modernization of the
tax system, at the Surabaya City Manpower Service. Preparation of a proof plan
to draw conclusions regarding the existence of the hypothesis. The proof plan
includes:
Operational
Definition of Variables.
According to Sugiyono (2018), the definition of an independent variable is as follows:
"An independent variable is a variable that influences or is the cause of
the change or emergence of the dependent (bound) variable."The independent variables
or free variables (X) from this research are Taxpayer Awareness (X1), Taxpayer
Knowledge (X2), Administrative Sanctions (X3), Tax Apparatus Services (X4), Tax
System Modernization (X5)
According to Sugiyono (2018), the
definition of a dependent (bound) variable is as follows: "A dependent
(bound) variable is a variable that is influenced or is a consequence, because
of the existence of an independent variable." The Dependent Variable (Y)
in this research is taxpayer compliance.
Table
1. Research Variables
|
Variable |
Indicator |
|
|
Taxpayer Awareness (X1) |
Aulia Rezy Fany (2016) |
a. Encourage
yourself b. Understanding
the tax function c. Understanding
the rights and obligations of taxpayers |
|
Taxpayer Knowledge (X2) |
Imam Suryadi (2016) |
a.
Understanding counting b.
Understanding deposits c.
Understanding tax reporting |
|
Administrative Sanctions (X3) |
Aprilia Titi Sari (2016) |
Penalty |
|
Tax Apparatus Services (X4) |
IANyoman P and I ketut B (2016) |
a. Reliability
(reliability), b. Assurance (guarantee), c. Empaty (empathy), d. Responsiveness (responsiveness) e. Tangible (direct
evidence). |
|
Tax System Modernization (X5) |
Monica Claudia (2015) |
a. Simplicity b. Convenience and can be
accessed online |
|
Taxpayer Compliance (Y) |
Yeni Therisia (2016) |
a.
Compliance registering. b.
Compliance in calculating and paying taxes owed c.
Compliance in paying tax arrears d.
Compliance with re-depositing SPT. |
Place and
time of research
The research was conducted
at the Surabaya City Government Manpower Office located on Jl. Jemur Sari Timur
II no 2. This research was conducted from 13 March 2017 to 31 March 2017.
Population
and Sample
The population in the study
is the area that the researcher wants to study. Population is a generalization
area consisting of: objects/subjects that have certain qualities and
characteristics which are applied by researchers to study and then draw
conclusions (Sugiyono, 2018). The population in this
study were all Civil Servants (PNS) in the Surabaya City Government Manpower
Office. The number of employees recorded in 2017 was 48 employees.
According to Roscoe in
Sugiono (2018) the sample size for research is as
follows: A suitable sample size for research is between 30 and 500. Respondents
in this research are individual taxpayers at the Surabaya City Manpower Office. The sample for this
research is the entire population of civil servants in the Surabaya city labor
service, totaling 48 people who use PPh article 21.
Data
collection technique
The technique used in data
collection is Field Research. The author's data collection technique was
carried out using a survey method using a questionnaire. According to Sugiyono (2018) a questionnaire is a data
collection technique that is carried out by giving a set of questions or written
statements to respondents to answer. The questionnaire in this research was
addressed to Civil Servants within the Surabaya City Manpower Service.
Primary data according to Sugiyono (2018) is "Primary sources
are data sources that directly provide data to data collectors". Primary
data in this research was obtained from a questionnaire given to all Civil
Servants at the Surabaya City Manpower Service.
Data analysis
To test the truth and seriousness
of the respondent's answers, testing is required, namely
Validity test
Validity testing using
Pearson correlation (validity index) is statedAccording to Sugiyono (2018) a valid instrument must have factors or items with a correlation value
(r) greater than 0.30.Then
reliability testing uses the alphacronbach method and is declared reliable if
the reliability coefficient is > 0.70”.
Reliability Test
Reliability testing is
used to determine the extent to which a measuring instrument can be trusted or
reliable and remains consistent if two or more measurements are carried out on
the same group with the same measuring instrument. Cronbach Alpha testing is
used to test the level of reliability of each variable questionnaire. The
measure used to show that the statement is reliable if the Cronbach Alpha value
is > 0.70 (Ghozali, 2016).
Normality test
The normality test aims to test whether in the testing
model, the confounding (residual) variables are normally distributed. One of
the statistical test tools used to test residual normality is the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov nonparametric statistical test. Data can be said to be
normally distributed if the absolute value (D) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z are
more than 0.05 (5%).
Hypothesis
testing
Hypothesis testing in this research uses the
Structural Equation Model - Partial Least Square (SEMPLS) method.
This research is research that uses many variables,
and the number of samples is not large. Therefore, this research uses the
PLS-SEM method with WARP-PLS as the software. The stages used to carry out data
analysis in this research were using a two-step approach proposed by Ghozali
and Latan (2016). The steps in the two step
approach include (1) conducting confirmatory factor analysis, and (2) testing
the overall structural model. The analysis used in the PLS approach includes:
Outer Model Testing and Structural Model Testing (Inner Model)
Outer
Model Testing
Outer model (outer relation or
measurement model) defines how each indicator block is related to its latent
variable. The measurement model or outer model with reflexive indicators is
evaluated with covergent and discriminant validity of the indicators and
composite reliability for block indicators.
1)
Convergent validitycan be assessed based on the
correlation between the component/indicator values and the construct values.
An individual reflexive measure is said to be high if the correlation of the
indicator with the construct is more than 0.70. However, in the initial stages
of research, a loading value of 0.50 to 0.60 can be considered sufficient
(Chin, 1998).
2)
Discriminant validityReflexive indicators can be seen in
the cross-loading between indicators and their constructs. If the correlation
of a construct with measurement items (indicators) is greater than other
constructs, then it can be said that the latent construct predicts measures in
its block better than measures in other blocks. Another method for assessing
discriminant validity is by comparing the square root of average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct with the correlation between the construct
and other constructs in the model. If the square root of the AVE for each
construct is greater than the correlation value between the construct and other
constructs, then the discriminant validity value is good (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Measuring discriminant validity by looking at the AVE value can be used
to measure the reliability of latent variable component values and the
results are more conservative than composite reliability. The recommended AVE
value is greater than 0.50.
3)
Composite reliabilityused to measure construct
reliability. Composite reliability measurements consist of 2 types, namely
internal consistency and Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's alpha tends to lower
bound estimate reliability, while internal consistency is a closer
approximation with the assumption that parameter estimates are accurate.
Internal consistency can only be used for constructs with reflexive indicators.
Structural
Model Testing (Inner Model)
Inner model (inner
relations, structural model, or substantive theory) describes the relationship
between latent variables based on substantive theory. The structural model was
assessed using Rsquare for dependent constructs, Stone-Geisser Q-square for
predictive relevance, and t tests and significance of structural path parameter
coefficients. Changes in the R-square value can be used to assess the
substantive influence of certain independent latent variables on the dependent
latent variable. Q-square is used to measure how well the observed values are
generated by the model and its parameter estimates. A Qsquare value greater
than 0 (zero) indicates that the model has predictive relevance value, while a
Q-square value of less than 0 (zero) indicates that the model is less relevant.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Hypothesis testing
Validity test
Validity testing is carried out to measure whether a questionnaire
is valid or not. A questionnaire is said to be valid iffactors or items with correlation values (r) greater than
0.30This means that the questions in the questionnaire are able to
reveal something that the questionnaire will measure. The results of the
validity test can be seen in table 2.
Table 2. Validity Test
|
Variable |
Statement |
Correlation
Coefficient (Pearson Correlation) |
Correlation
Probability [Sig.(2-tailed)] |
r table |
Results |
|
WP
Awareness (X1) |
1 |
0.460 |
0.001 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
2 |
0.585 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
3 |
0.871 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
4 |
0.901 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
5 |
0.813 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
6 |
0.769 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
WP
Knowledge (X2) |
1 |
0.864 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
2 |
0.817 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
3 |
0.876 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
4 |
0.799 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
5 |
0.869 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
6 |
0.773 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Administrative
Sanctions (X3) |
1 |
0.575 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
2 |
0.763 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
3 |
0.908 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
4 |
0.733 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
5 |
0.547 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Apartment
Services (X4) |
1 |
0.517 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
2 |
0.648 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
3 |
0.888 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
4 |
0.787 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
5 |
0.787 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
6 |
0.768 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Tax
System Modernization (X5) |
1 |
0.865 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
2 |
0.792 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
3 |
0.865 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
4 |
0.835 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Taxpayer
Compliance(Y) |
Y1 |
0.777 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
Y2 |
0.968 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y3 |
0.965 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y4 |
0.935 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y5 |
0.937 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y6 |
0.960 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y7 |
0.951 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y8 |
0.836 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y9 |
0.923 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y10 |
0.845 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
|
|
Y11 |
0.888 |
0,000 |
0.164 |
Valid |
Source: Appendix 5,
Processed data
From table 2.
It can be seen that the validity test for the variables Taxpayer Awareness,
Taxpayer Knowledge, Administrative Sanctions, Tax Service, Tax System
Modernization, Taxpayer Compliance has a significant value smaller than 0.05 so
it can be concluded that the questions in the questionnaire are able to reveal
something that will be measured by the questionnaire.
Reliability
Test
Reliability
is a measure of the stability and consistency of respondents in answering
things related to question constructs which are the dimensions of a variable
arranged in a questionnaire. The reliability of a variable construct is said to
be good if it has a Cronbach's alpha value > 0.6 (Nugroho,
2005). The
resulting Cronbach's alpha values are as follows:
Table
3. Reliability Test
|
Variable |
Alpha Cr |
Alpha |
Conclusion |
|
WP Awareness (X1) |
0.812 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
WP Knowledge (X2) |
0.910 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
Administrative Sanctions (X3) |
0.737 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
Apartment Services (X4) |
0.827 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
System Administration (X5) |
0.855 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
Taxpayer
Compliance |
0.979 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
Source: Appendix 6,
Processed data
From table 3
The Cronbach's Alpha value for all variables is greater than 0.60 so it can be
concluded that the indicators or questionnaires used are the variables Taxpayer
awareness, Taxpayer knowledge, administrative sanctions, tax apparatus
services, modernization of the taxation system and Taxpayer Compliance are all
declared reliable and trustworthy as variable measuring instruments .
Normality Test
Normality testing is the first step in multivariate
analysis. Residuals are said to be normal if the difference between the
predicted value and the actual score or error is distributed symmetrically
around the mean value equal to 0.
Table 4.
Normality Test
|
|
Absolute
(D) |
Kolmogorov- Smirnov
Z |
Asymp.
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Information |
|
Awareness 1 |
0.421 |
2,919 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Awareness 2 |
0.375 |
2,600 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Awareness 3 |
0.354 |
2,454 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Awareness 4 |
0.353 |
2,443 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Awareness 5 |
0.369 |
2,556 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Awareness 6 |
0.379 |
2,628 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Knowledge 1 |
0.237 |
1,643 |
0.009 |
Normal |
|
Knowledge 2 |
0.257 |
1,783 |
0.003 |
Normal |
|
Knowledge 3 |
0.293 |
2,030 |
0.001 |
Normal |
|
Knowledge 4 |
0.368 |
2,552 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Knowledge 5 |
0.248 |
1,716 |
0.006 |
Normal |
|
Knowledge 6 |
0.246 |
1,705 |
0.006 |
Normal |
|
Sanctions 1 |
0.361 |
2,504 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Sanctions 2 |
0.316 |
2,186 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Sanctions 3 |
0.329 |
2,277 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Sanctions 4 |
0.304 |
2,658 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Sanctions 5 |
0.387 |
2,679 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
P1 |
0.395 |
2,737 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
P2 |
0.360 |
2,495 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
P3 |
0.316 |
2,186 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
P4 |
0.267 |
1,848 |
0.002 |
Normal |
|
P5 |
0.397 |
2,749 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
P6 |
0.330 |
2,284 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Modern 1 |
0.364 |
2,522 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Modern 2 |
0.444 |
3,073 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Modern 3 |
0.339 |
2,347 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
Modern 4 |
0.271 |
1,876 |
0.002 |
Normal |
|
KP1 |
0.354 |
2,454 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP2 |
0.369 |
2,554 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP3 |
0.376 |
2,606 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP4 |
0.364 |
2,521 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP5 |
0.298 |
2,062 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP6 |
0.319 |
2,213 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP7 |
0.326 |
2,259 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP8 |
0.305 |
2,114 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP9 |
0.399 |
2,766 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP10 |
0.430 |
2,978 |
0,000 |
Normal |
|
KP11 |
0.387 |
2,695 |
0,000 |
Normal |
Source:
Appendix 7, Processed data
Table 4 shows a summary of the results of normality
testing of research indicators. The test results show that all research
indicators are normally distributed. It is shown that all indicators have an
absolute (D) and Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z value of more than 0.05 (5%).
Hypothesis testing
Outer Model Testing
(Measurement Model)
The measurement model or outer model with reflexive
indicators is evaluated with covergent and discriminant validity of the
indicators and composite reliability for block indicators.
1) Convergent Validity
Convergent validityfrom a reflexive measurement model,
indicators are assessed based on the correlation between the item
score/component score and the construct score calculated using PLS. An
individual reflexive measure is said to be high if the correlation level with
the construct is more than 0.70. However, a loading/correlation value of 0.50 –
0.60 is considered sufficient in the early stages of research development.
%201908-1923.fld/image006.png)
Figure 2. PLS Algorithm Results
The initial outer model test results can be seen in
Figure 2 and Table 4 which show that there are 4 indicators that have factor
loadings of less than 0.50, namely sanctions2, sanctions5, P1, and P2. Based on
the results of the outer loading, the 8 indicators were removed from the model and
retested.
Table
5. PLS (Re-Calculate) Algorithm Results
|
|
Obedience |
Awareness |
Knowledge |
Penalty |
Service |
Modernization |
|
KP1 |
0.753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP2 |
0.963 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP3 |
0.961 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP4 |
0.936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP5 |
0.905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP6 |
0.955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP7 |
0.914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP8 |
0.836 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP9 |
0.931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP10 |
0.851 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP11 |
0.886 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness1 |
|
0.519 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness2 |
|
0.564 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness3 |
|
0.909 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness4 |
|
0.889 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness5 |
|
0.750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness6 |
|
0.684 |
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge1 |
|
|
0.888 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge2 |
|
|
0.853 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge3 |
|
|
0.835 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge4 |
|
|
0.839 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge5 |
|
|
0.865 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge6 |
|
|
0.678 |
|
|
|
|
Sanctions1 |
|
|
|
0.828 |
|
|
|
Sanctions 2 |
|
|
|
0.249 |
|
|
|
Sanctions3 |
|
|
|
0.783 |
|
|
|
Sanctions4 |
|
|
|
0.700 |
|
|
|
Sanctions 5 |
|
|
|
0.157 |
|
|
|
P1 |
|
|
|
|
0.030 |
|
|
P2 |
|
|
|
|
0.354 |
|
|
P3 |
|
|
|
|
0.810 |
|
|
P4 |
|
|
|
|
0.622 |
|
|
P5 |
|
|
|
|
0.879 |
|
|
P6 |
|
|
|
|
0.756 |
|
|
Modernization1 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.712 |
|
Modernization2 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.561 |
|
Modernization3 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.936 |
|
Modernization4 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.924 |
Source: Data processed with
Sem PLS 2.0
%201908-1923.fld/image007.png)
The results of the
recalculation in testing the outer model can be seen in Figure 3 and Table 5 which shows
that all indicators have a factor loading of more than 0.50 so they can be said
to have met convergent validity.
Figure
3. Outer Loadings Re-Calcula
Table
6. Outer Loadings Re-Calculate
|
|
Obedience |
Awareness |
Knowledge |
Penalty |
Service |
Modernization |
|
KP1 |
0.752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP2 |
0.936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP3 |
0.960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP4 |
0.936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP5 |
0.905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP6 |
0.955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP7 |
0.915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP8 |
0.837 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP9 |
0.931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP10 |
0.850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
KP11 |
0.886 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness1 |
|
0.519 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness2 |
|
0.564 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness3 |
|
0.909 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness4 |
|
0.889 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness5 |
|
0.750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness6 |
|
0.683 |
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge1 |
|
|
0.888 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge2 |
|
|
0.853 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge3 |
|
|
0.835 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge4 |
|
|
0.839 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge5 |
|
|
0.865 |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge6 |
|
|
0.674 |
|
|
|
|
Sanctions1 |
|
|
|
0.802 |
|
|
|
Sanctions3 |
|
|
|
0.870 |
|
|
|
Sanctions4 |
|
|
|
0.717 |
|
|
|
P3 |
|
|
|
|
0.879 |
|
|
P4 |
|
|
|
|
0.690 |
|
|
P5 |
|
|
|
|
0.919 |
|
|
P6 |
|
|
|
|
0.801 |
|
|
Modernization1 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.712 |
|
Modernization2 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.561 |
|
Modernization3 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.936 |
|
Modernization4 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.924 |
Source: Data processed with
Sem PLS 2.0
2) Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity assessed
by looking at the cross loading between the indicator and its construct. Table 7 shows that the correlation
of the KP construct with its indicators is higher than the correlation of other
constructs (Awareness, Knowledge, Sanctions, P, Modernization). The correlation
between the construct and each indicator that forms it also shows a higher
value compared to the correlation between the construct and the indicators that
form other constructs. This shows that the latent construct predicts the
indicator.
Table
7. Cross Loadings
|
|
Obedience |
Awareness |
Knowledge |
Penalty |
Service |
Modernization |
|
KP1 |
0.752 |
0.175 |
-0.297 |
0.316 |
0.019 |
0.003 |
|
KP2 |
0.963 |
0.190 |
-0.590 |
0.316 |
0.265 |
0.205 |
|
KP3 |
0.960 |
0.130 |
-0.554 |
0.265 |
0.265 |
0.214 |
|
KP4 |
0.936 |
0.068 |
-0.542 |
0.284 |
0.338 |
0.269 |
|
KP5 |
0.905 |
0.179 |
-0.502 |
0.193 |
0.219 |
0.304 |
|
KP6 |
0.955 |
0.207 |
-0.636 |
0.310 |
0.194 |
0.235 |
|
KP7 |
0.915 |
0.181 |
-0.598 |
0.172 |
0.244 |
0.292 |
|
KP8 |
0.837 |
0.167 |
-0.165 |
0.214 |
0.156 |
0.176 |
|
KP9 |
0.931 |
0.104 |
-0.066 |
0.217 |
0.310 |
0.247 |
|
KP10 |
0.850 |
0.089 |
-0.522 |
0.359 |
0.262 |
0.186 |
|
KP11 |
0.886 |
0.119 |
-0.540 |
0.287 |
0.208 |
0.141 |
|
Awareness1 |
0.130 |
0.519 |
-0.165 |
0.080 |
0.453 |
0.519 |
|
Awareness2 |
0.083 |
0.564 |
-0.066 |
0.263 |
0.061 |
0.633 |
|
Awareness3 |
0.174 |
0.909 |
-0.127 |
0.147 |
-0.088 |
0.111 |
|
Awareness4 |
0.098 |
0.889 |
-0.023 |
0.242 |
-0.126 |
0.124 |
|
Awareness5 |
0.057 |
0.750 |
0.064 |
0.270 |
-0.114 |
0.060 |
|
Awareness6 |
0.040 |
0.683 |
0.085 |
0.306 |
-0.163 |
0.116 |
|
Knowledge1 |
-0.483 |
-0.172 |
0.888 |
-0.188 |
-0.179 |
-0.123 |
|
Knowledge2 |
-0.553 |
-0.159 |
0.853 |
-0.246 |
-0.213 |
-0.136 |
|
Knowledge3 |
-0.382 |
0.018 |
0.835 |
-0.060 |
-0.153 |
-0169 |
|
Knowledge4 |
-0.671 |
-0.044 |
0.839 |
-0.210 |
-0.151 |
-0.088 |
|
Knowledge5 |
-0.475 |
-0.108 |
0.865 |
-0.147 |
-0.171 |
-0.175 |
|
Knowledge6 |
-0.164 |
0.045 |
0.678 |
-0.020 |
-0.153 |
-0.170 |
|
Sanctions1 |
0.284 |
0.318 |
-0.200 |
0.802 |
0.011 |
0.004 |
|
Sanctions3 |
0.196 |
0.249 |
-0.167 |
0.870 |
0.517 |
0.282 |
|
Sanctions4 |
0.197 |
-0.009 |
-0.097 |
0.717 |
0.310 |
0.216 |
|
P3 |
0.193 |
-0.110 |
-0.145 |
0.356 |
0.879 |
0.314 |
|
P4 |
0.081 |
-0.002 |
-0.137 |
0.399 |
0.690 |
0.283 |
|
P5 |
0.316 |
0.055 |
-0.224 |
0.197 |
0.919 |
0.465 |
|
P6 |
0.133 |
0.287 |
-0.129 |
0.212 |
0.801 |
0.387 |
|
Modernization1 |
0.084 |
0.551 |
-0.068 |
0.338 |
0.067 |
0.712 |
|
Modernization2 |
-0.031 |
0.210 |
0.049 |
0.223 |
0.331 |
0.561 |
|
Modernization3 |
0.250 |
0.310 |
-0.154 |
0.141 |
0.527 |
0.936 |
|
Modernization4 |
0.192 |
0.266 |
-0.140 |
0.139 |
0.408 |
0.924 |
Source: Appendix 9, Data
processed with Sem PLS 2.0
3)
Composite
Reliability
Composite reliability assessed
with two kinds of measures, namely internal consistency and Cronbach's Alpha.
Constructs can be said to be reliable if both values are more than 0.60. The
composite reliability test results (table 7) show that the constructs KP,
Awareness, Knowledge, Sanctions, P, Modernization i have good reliability
because their internal consistency is more than 0.60.
Table 8. Composite Reliability
|
|
Composite
Reliability |
|
KP |
0.979 |
|
Awareness |
0.871 |
|
Knowledge |
0.871 |
|
Penalty |
0.895 |
|
P |
0.929 |
|
Modernization |
0.840 |
Source:
Appendix 10, Processed data
Structural Model Testing
(Inner Model)
The structural model was assessed by looking at the
percentage of variance explained by looking at the R-square for the dependent
latent construct and the structural path coefficient.
Table
9. R Square
|
|
R Square |
|
KP |
0.410 |
|
Awareness |
- |
|
Knowledge |
- |
|
Penalty |
- |
|
Service |
- |
|
Modernization |
- |
Source:
Appendix 11, Processed data
Table 9 shows that the model of the influence of
Awareness, Knowledge, Sanctions, Services and Modernization on Taxpayer
Compliance gives an R Square value of 0.410. The larger the Rsquare shows that
the greater the independent variable can explain the dependent variable, so the
better the structural equation that is built. This model provides an R-square
of 0.410, meaning the influence of Awareness, Knowledge, Sanctions, Services
and Modernization on Taxpayer Compliance is 41%, while the remaining 59% is
explained by other variables outside the model.
The results of the hypothesis test can be seen from
the magnitude of the t-statistical value. The limit for rejecting and accepting
the proposed hypothesis is ±1.96, where if the t value is in the range of -1.96
and 1.96 then the hypothesis is rejected or in other words accepts the null
hypothesis (H0). The t-statistic estimation results can be seen in the
following results for inner weight:
Table
10. Path Coefficients (Mean, STDEV, T-Values)
|
|
Original Sample
(O) |
Sample Mean (M) |
Standard
Deviation (STDEV) |
Standard Error
(STERR) |
T Statistics
(O/STERR) |
|
Awareness > KP |
0.035 |
0.040 |
0.118 |
0.118 |
0.294 |
|
Knowledge > KP |
-0.544 |
-0.550 |
0.162 |
0.162 |
3,363 |
|
Sanctions > KP |
0.139 |
0.157 |
0.102 |
0.102 |
1,365 |
|
P > KP |
0.067 |
0.056 |
0.180 |
0.180 |
0.372 |
|
Modernization > KP |
0.081 |
0.042 |
0.102 |
0.102 |
0.439 |
Source:
Appendix 13, Processed data
Table 10 shows the significance level of the influence
of Awareness, Knowledge, Sanctions, Services, Modernization. None of the
variables of awareness, knowledge, sanctions, service, modernization have a
statistically significant effect on compliance. because the statistical t value
for each dimension/construct (Awareness, Knowledge, Sanctions, P,
Modernization) is smaller than the t table, namely 1.96. From the t-count
above, it can be seen that the results of the hypothesis test are
Table
11. Hypothetical Conclusion
|
|
T-Count |
t-
Table |
Conclusion |
|
WP Awareness > Compliance |
0.294 |
1.96 |
rejected |
|
WP Knowledge > Compliance |
3,363 |
1.96 |
accepted |
|
Administrative Sanctions > Compliance |
1,365 |
1.96 |
rejected |
|
Tax Apartment Services > Compliance |
0.372 |
1.96 |
rejected |
|
Modernization > Compliance |
0.439 |
1.96 |
rejected |
Source:
Appendix 13, Processed data
The
influence of taxpayer awareness on compliance
Based on the results of the
analysis, it is stated that the Taxpayer awareness hypothesis has an effect on
compliance "not tested". This can be interpreted as individual
taxpayers assuming that awareness alone will not influence taxpayers in paying
taxes.
Based on facts in the
field, there are direct deductions from salaries depending on class for civil
servants which are carried out by the treasurer at a government agency, either
ministry/institution, making it easier for civil servants to pay taxes.
However, in contrast to the submission of SPT carried out by individuals,
awareness alone but not balanced with knowledge in reporting the fulfillment of
tax obligations in the form of an annual SPT does not make awareness alone have
an effect on compliance.
The Taxpayer compliance
variable is 68% in item number 10, namely "I did not fill out the
registration form and the requirements for Taxpayer registration are in
accordance with valid identity". As many as 62% were in item number 9,
namely "I have not submitted my SPT completely and in accordance with tax
requirements". The results of the distribution of answers regarding the
Taxpayer Compliance variable can be concluded that on average the majority of
respondents' answers were disagree.
The Taxpayer awareness
variable is 74% in item number 1, namely: "Agree, that Taxpayers must
calculate, pay and report taxes voluntarily?". As many as 68% on items
number 4 and 6, namely: "Agree, that paying taxes that are not appropriate
can be detrimental to the country?" and Do you agree that delaying tax
payments is very detrimental to the country?” The results of the distribution
of answers regarding the Taxpayer awareness variable can be concluded that the
average answer from respondents is strongly agree.
Research that supports taxpayer awareness has no
effect on compliance is research from Lusia, et al (2017) showing that there is
no effect of taxpayer awareness on taxpayer compliance. Meanwhile, it does not
support research conducted by Alfianto Cahyo (2014), Monica (2015), Devi
(2015), and Tanzila (2012) regarding the research variable regarding the
influence of awareness in paying taxes. This research does not support several
other studies, because of differences in characteristics at the research site.
The
influence of taxpayer’s
knowledge on compliance
Based on the results of the
analysis, it is stated that the Taxpayer's knowledge hypothesis has an effect
on "tested" compliance. This can be interpreted as individual
taxpayers assuming that each person's knowledge alone can influence taxpayer
compliance.
Facts in the field show
that this condition means that knowledge in filling out and reporting annual
tax returns influences civil servants in fulfilling tax obligations.
The Taxpayer knowledge
variable was 66% in item number 2, namely "Agree, that taxes are the
largest source of state revenue?" The average respondent's answer
regarding Taxpayer knowledge was high (agree). As many as 55% on item number 4,
namely "Agree, that paying taxes that are not appropriate can be
detrimental to the country?" The average respondent's answer regarding
Taxpayer knowledge is high (agree). The results of the distribution of answers
regarding the Taxpayer knowledge variable can be concluded that the average
answer from respondents is agree.
The Taxpayer compliance
variable is 68% in item number 10, namely "I did not fill out the
registration form and the requirements for Taxpayer registration are in
accordance with valid identity". As many as 62% were in item number 9,
namely "I have not submitted my SPT completely and in accordance with tax
requirements". The results of the distribution of answers regarding the
Taxpayer Compliance variable can be concluded that on average the majority of
respondents' answers were disagree.
Research that supports taxpayer knowledge has an
influence on compliance is research from Alfianto Cahyo (2014) and Tanzila
(2012) which shows that there is an influence on taxpayer compliance and does
not support research conducted by Monica (2015) which shows no influence on
taxpayer compliance. This research does not support several other studies,
because of differences in characteristics at the research site.
The
influence of tax sanctions on compliance
Based on the results of the
analysis, it is stated that the hypothesis that tax sanctions have an effect on
compliance is "not tested". This can be interpreted. Individual
Taxpayers consider that the existence of administrative sanctions in taxation
alone will not make everyone obedient in paying taxes.
Facts on the ground show
that the opinion of the public, especially civil servants within the Surabaya
Manpower Service, is that administrative sanctions and other sanctions or
tax-related violations have not been followed up concretely and firmly.
The Taxpayer compliance
variable is 68% in item number 10, namely "I did not fill out the
registration form and the requirements for Taxpayer registration are in
accordance with valid identity". As many as 62% were in item number 9,
namely "I have not submitted my SPT completely and in accordance with tax
requirements". The results of the distribution of answers regarding the
Taxpayer Compliance variable can be concluded that on average the majority of
respondents' answers were disagree.
In the administrative
sanctions variable, it was 64% in items number 1 and 5, namely "Agree,
that policies regarding tax sanctions can encourage taxpayers to pay
taxes?" and "Agree, that every person who deliberately submits a Tax
Return whose contents are incorrect so that it can cause losses to state
revenues will be subject to criminal sanctions, which will affect Taxpayer
compliance?". The results of the distribution of answers regarding the
administrative sanctions variable can be concluded that the average answer from
respondents is strongly agree.
Research that supports administrative sanctions having
no effect on compliance is research from Oktaviane (2012) and Monica (2015)
which shows there is no influence between sanctions and taxpayer compliance,
and does not support research conducted by Pujiwidodo (2016) which
shows there is an influence between tax sanctions with Taxpayer compliance.
This research does not support previous research because the research location
is different. This research does not support several other studies, because of
differences in characteristics at the research site.
The
influence of tax apparatus services on compliance
Based on the results of the analysis, it is stated
that the hypothesis that Tax Aparture services have an effect on compliance is
"not tested". This can be interpreted as individual taxpayers
assuming that the services of tax officials alone cannot influence taxpayer
compliance.
The facts on the ground are that the method carried
out by the majority of civil servants within the Surabaya City Manpower Service
is through efilling, so that no matter how good the service provided by the tax
officials, they will never feel it because tax compliance has been carried out
via the internet so it has no impact at all.
In the Taxpayer Compliance
variable, it is 68% in item number 10, namely "I did not fill out the
registration form and the requirements for Taxpayer registration are in
accordance with valid identity". As many as 62% were in item number 9,
namely "I have not submitted my SPT completely and in accordance with tax
requirements". The results of the distribution of answers regarding the
Taxpayer Compliance variable can be concluded that on average the majority of
respondents' answers were disagree.
In the tax apparatus
service variable, it was 74% in item number 5, namely: "Agree, that
calculating personal taxes is in accordance with the correct tax calculation
basis?". As many as 64% on item number 1, namely: "Agree, that the
Tax Apparatus helps in overcoming tax calculation problems?" The results
of the distribution of answers regarding the tax apparatus service variable can
be concluded that the average answer from respondents is strongly agree.
Research that supports tax apparatus services having
no effect on compliance is research from Oktaviane (2012), Yeyen (2012), Monica
(2015) showing the opposite that there is no influence between Tax Apparatus
services on Taxpayer compliance and does not support research conducted by
Tanzila ( 2012), and Kirana (2013) show that there is an influence between tax
authorities' services and taxpayer compliance. This research does not support
previous research because the research location is different. This research
does not support several other studies, because of differences in
characteristics at the research site.
The
influence of tax system modernization on compliance
Based on the results of the analysis, it is stated
that the tax system modernization hypothesis has an effect on compliance
"not tested". This can be interpreted as individual taxpayers
assuming that the modernization of the tax system carried out by the
Directorate General of Taxes alone does not affect taxpayer compliance.
Facts in the field show that up to now, if you have to
submit your SPT obligations within the labor department, if you experience
problems when reporting your e-SPT, you still have to go to the tax service
office. So the modernization carried out is still less than optimal.
In the Taxpayer Compliance variable, it is 68% in item
number 10, namely "I did not fill out the registration form and the
requirements for Taxpayer registration are in accordance with valid
identity". As many as 62% were in item number 9, namely "I have not
submitted my SPT completely and in accordance with tax requirements". The
results of the distribution of answers regarding the Taxpayer Compliance
variable can be concluded that on average the majority of respondents' answers
were disagree.
In the tax system
modernization variable, it was 72% in item number 2, namely: "Agree, that
there are tax regulations that can be accessed more quickly via the
internet?". As many as 70% on item number 3, namely: "Agree, that
there has been an increase in service facilities related to the tax
system?". The results of the distribution of answers regarding the tax
system modernization variable can be concluded that the average answer from
respondents is strongly agree.
Research that supports modernization not having an
effect on compliance is research from Stella Rahmawaty (2017), the
modernization strategy of the Directorate General of Taxes does not affect tax
compliance, and does not support Monica's (2015) research regarding the
perception of modernization of the tax system on taxpayer compliance, showing
that there is an influence on mandatory compliance. Tax. This research does not
support several other studies, because of differences in characteristics at the
research site
Discussion
Based on the statistical test results produced, it can
be concluded that the Taxpayer Knowledge variable has an influence on Taxpayer
compliance, while the Taxpayer Awareness, Tax Sanctions, Tax Aparture Services,
Tax System Modernization variables have no influence on Taxpayer compliance.
The statistical test
results produced by the Taxpayer Awareness variable alone have no effect on
taxpayer compliance. In the theory put forward by Ritongga (2011),
Taxpayer awareness in paying taxes is the Taxpayer's behavior in the form of
views or feelings involving knowledge, belief and reasoning accompanied by a
tendency to act in accordance with the regulations provided by the tax system
and provisions (Kumala & Junaidi, 2020).
The statistical test
results produced by the WP knowledge variable alone have no effect on taxpayer
compliance. In the theory put forward by Gardina and Haryanto in Sara (2013),
one of the causes of the influence of tax knowledge on taxpayer compliance is
the existence of sources of tax information that every taxpayer can obtain,
The statistical test
results produced by the administrative sanctions variable alone have no effect
on taxpayer compliance. In the theory put forward by Franzoni in Carolina and
Fortunata (2013),
tax compliance can be influenced by several factors and can be seen from many
perspectives, tendencies towards public institutions (in this case the
Directorate General of Taxes), the justice felt by the taxpayer.
Taxes from the
applicable system, perceptions of fairness, and the firmness of laws and
sanctions (Susmiatun & Kusmuriyanto, 2014).
The statistical test results produced by the tax
apparatus service variable alone have no effect on taxpayer compliance. In the
theory put forward by Syahril
(2013) explains
good Tax Apartment services where good tax administration conditions are a
prerequisite. In the midst of limitations in various things, namely facilities
and infrastructure, human resources, technology and information systems, as
well as available funds.
The statistical test results produced by the tax
system modernization variable alone have no effect on taxpayer compliance. In
the theory put forward by Polii (2017) explains,
the aim of tax modernization is to answer the background to tax
modernization, namely: achieving a high level of tax compliance, achieving a high level of trust (trust) in tax administration, and achieving a high level of tax employee productivity.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the research
discussion regarding the analysis of the fulfillment of tax obligations on
Taxpayer compliance at the Surabaya City Manpower Office, it can be concluded;
(1) the purpose of this research is to examine the influence of Taxpayer
awareness on individual Taxpayer compliance at the Surabaya City Manpower
Service. The results show that taxpayer awareness has no effect on taxpayer
compliance behavior, (2) the purpose of this research is to examine the
influence of taxpayer knowledge on individual taxpayer compliance at the
Surabaya City Manpower Department. The results show that taxpayer knowledge
influences taxpayer compliance behavior, (3) the purpose of this research is to
examine the effect of tax sanctions on individual taxpayer compliance at the
Surabaya City Manpower Office. The results show that tax sanctions have no
effect on taxpayer compliance behavior, (4) the purpose of this research is to
examine the influence of tax apparatus services on individual taxpayer
compliance at the Surabaya City Manpower Office. The results show that tax
officials' services have no effect on taxpayer compliance, and (5) the purpose
of this research is to examine the effect of modernization of the tax system on
individual taxpayer compliance at the Surabaya City Manpower Department. The
results show that modernization of the tax system has no effect on taxpayer
compliance behavior.
REFERENCES
Caludia, MC. (2015). Analisis
Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi dalam membayar Pajak
(Studi Kasus Pada Kantor Pelayaan Pajak Pratam Surabbaya Rungkut di Surabaya). Surabaya: Universitas Surabaya
Carolina, V., & Fortunata, R. (2013). Tax Fairness
Perception and Tax Compliance: Studi Empirik Pada Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi
Karyawan di Bandung. InFestasi, 9(1), 1–8.
Diamastuti, E. (2016). Ke (tidak) patuhan wajib pajak:
Potret self assessment system. Ekuitas (Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Keuangan), 20(3),
280–304.
Ghozali, I. (2016). Desain Penelitian Kuantitatif &
Kualitatif untuk Akuntansi. Bisnis Dan Ilmu.
Kumala, R., & Junaidi, A. (2020). Pengaruh
Pemahaman Peraturan Pajak, Tarif Pajak, Lingkungan, dan Kesadaran Wajib Pajak
Terhadap Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak Pada UMKM. Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis,
Dan Sosial (Embiss), 1(1), 48–55.
Kusuma, H. (2018). Faktor–Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi
Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi Di Kota Serang.
Monica, R., & Andi, A. (2019). Pengaruh Kepatuhan
Wajib Pajak, Pemeriksaan Pajak, Dan Pencairan Tunggakan Pajak Terhadap
Penerimaan Pajak Badan Pada Kantor Pelayanan Pajak Pratama Serang Tahun
2012-2016. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Terpadu, 12(1).
Polii, C. M., & Sondakh, J. (2017). Pengaruh
Modernisasi Administrasi Perpajakan Terhadap Kinerja Kantor Pelayanan Pajak
Pratama Kotamobagu. Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis Dan
Akuntansi, 5(2).
Pujiwidodo, D. (2016). Persepsi Sanksi Perpajakan
Terhadap Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi. Jurnal Online Insan Akuntan,
1(1), 92–116.
Rahmowaty, S. (2017). Pengaruh pengetahuan,
modernisasi strategi direktoral jenderal pajak, sanksi perpajakan dan religiusitas
yang dipersepsikan terhadap kepatuhan perpajakan. Malang
Ritonga, P. (2011). Analisis pengaruh kesadaran dan
kepatuhan wajib pajak terhadap kinerja kantor pelayanan pajak (KPP) dengan
pelayanan wajib pajak sebagai variabel intervening di KPP Medan Timur.
Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Sara, L. J., & Rahmat, E. (2013). Pengaruh
Pengetahuan Pajak dan Sistem Administrasi Perpajakan Modern Terhadap Kepatuhan
Wajib Pajak. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi, 5(2).
Sugiyono, S. (2018). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif untuk
Penelitian yang Bersifat: Eksploratif, Enterpretif, Interaktif dan Konstruktif.
Bandung: CV. Alfabeta.
Susmiatun, S., & Kusmuriyanto, K. (2014). Pengaruh
Pengetahuan perpajakan, ketegasan sanksi perpajakan dan keadilan perpajakan
terhadap kepatuhan wajib pajak UMKM di kota Semarang. Accounting Analysis
Journal, 3(3).
Syahril, F. (2013). Pengaruh tingkat pemahaman wajib
pajak dan kualitas pelayanan fiskus terhadap tingkat kepatuhan wajib pajak PPh
orang pribadi (studi empiris pada KPP Pratama Kota Solok). Jurnal Akuntansi,
1(2).
Copyright holders:
Devi Permata Sari (2023)
First publication right:
Devotion - Journal of Research and Community
Service
%201908-1923.fld/image008.jpg){kind=small}
This
article is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International