ISSN (Print) 2307-4531

ISSN (Print) 2307-4531

ISSN (Online) 2307-4531

Impact Factor 0398

Editorial Team Editor In Chief

1 Associate Professor Mohammad Othman Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers Executive Managing Editor

1 Associate Professor Mohammad Othman Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers Coordinating Editor

1 Dr Daniela Roxana Andron Departamentul Drept Privat i tiinele Educaiei Universitatea Lucian Blaga din Sibiu httpdppdulbsibiuro httpdreptulbsibiurocentrul-ccap tel +40-269-211 602 fax +40-269-235 224 Romania

Section Editors 1 Prof Dr Indrani Pramod Kelkar Department of MathematicsChief Mentor Acharya Institute of

Technology Soldevanahalli Hesaraghatta Main Road Banavara Post Bangalore- 560 107 Cell 9164685067 India

2 Prof Dr Felina Panas Espique Professor School of Teacher Education Saint Louis University Baguio City Dean of the School of Teacher Education Bonifacio St Baguio City 2600 (074) 447-0664 (landline) Mobile Number 099-897-63236 Philippines

3 Prof Dr Hye-Kyung Pang Business Administrations Department Hallym University 1 Ockcheon-dong Chooncheon-si Kangwon-do (office) 82-33-248-3312 (cell) 82-10-5311-6131 Korea Republic of

Layout Editors amp Copyeditors 1 Dr Nimish H Vasoya Head - General Department SANJAYBHAI RAJGURU COLLEGE OF

ENGINEERING (Previously Om Shanti Engineering College ) Sanjaybhai Rajguru Education Zone At-Hadmatia (Bedi) Morvi Road Rajkot- 360 003 India

2 Dr Florian Marcel Nuta Faculty of EconomicsDanubius University of Galati Romania 3 Dr Lowida L Alcalde Suzhou North America High School China Philippines

Editorial Board Members and Reviewers 1 Associate Professor Mohammad Othman Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers 2 Prof Dr Ayhan Esi Adiyaman University Science and Art Faculty Department of Mathematics

Turkey 3 prof Dr Abdul Haseeb Ansar International Islamic University Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 4 Prof Dr Felina Panas Espique Professor School of Teacher Education Saint Louis University

Baguio City Dean of the School of Teacher Education Bonifacio St Baguio City 2600 (074) 447-0664 (landline) Mobile Number 099-897-63236 Philippines

5 Prof Dr Indrani Pramod Kelkar Department of MathematicsChief Mentor Acharya Institute of Technology Soldevanahalli Hesaraghatta Main Road Banavara Post Bangalore- 560 107 Cell 9164685067 India

6 Prof Dr Samir El-Sherif College of Agriculture Cairo University Egypt 7 Prof Dr Hye-Kyung Pang Business Administrations Department Hallym University 1

Ockcheon-dong Chooncheon-si Kangwon-do (office) 82-33-248-3312 (cell) 82-10-5311-6131 Korea Republic of

8 Prof Dr Aghareed M Tayeb Chemical Engineering Dept Faculty of Engineering Minia University Minia Egypt

9 Prof Dr Hamed Hmeda Kassem Department of Zoology Faculty of Science Benghazi University Libya

10 Prof Dr Ramel D Tomaquin Dean CAS Surigao Del Sur State University Tandag City Surigao Del Sur Philippines

11 ProfDr Amer Abdulrahman Taqa basic science Department College of Dentistry Mosul University Iraq

12 Prof Dr Maria Luisa A Valdez Dean of Colleges and Head of Graduate School Batangas State University ARASOF Nasugbu Campus Nasugbu Batangas Philippines

13 Prof Dr Iryna Morozova Romance-Germanic Faculty Odesa Mechnikov University Ukraine 14 Prof Dr Manu Rathee Head of Department Department of Prosthodontics and Crown amp Bridge

Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences Pt B D Sharma University of Health Sciences Rohtak Haryana India

15 Prof Dr Mahmoud Younis Mohammed Taha Department of Dental Basic Sciences College of Dentistry Mosul University Iraq

16 Prof Dr Akbar Masood Dean Faculty of Biological Sciences Head Department of Biochemistry the University of Kashmir India

17 Asso Prof Mario Amar Fetalver College of Arts amp Sciences Romblon State University Philippines

18 Asso Prof Fateh Mebarek-Oudina Algeria 19 Asso Prof Zakaria Ahmed PRIMEASIA UNIVERSITY MICROBIOLOGY DEPARTMENT HBR

TOWER 9 BANANI DHAKA 1213 Bangladesh 20 Associate Professor Zaira Wahab Iqra University Pakistan 21 Associate Professor Dr KULDEEP NARAIN MATHUR SCHOOL OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE

UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA Malaysia 22 Asso Prof Evangelos P Hinis National Technical University of Athens - NTUA Greece

23 Asso Prof Girish Chandra Mishra OPJindal Institute of TechnologyRaigarh(CG India 24 Dr Houshmand E Masoumi Center for Technology and Society Technical University of Berlin

Germany 25 Dr Esther Patrick Archibong Dept of Sociology University of Calabar Nigeria 26 Dr Christina De Simone Faculty of Education University of Ottawa333 Chapel Street Suite 305

Ottawa Ontario K1N 8Y8 tel 613-562-58004112 Canada 27 Dr Hulela Keba Botswana College of Agriculture Faculty of Agriculture Private Bag 0027

Gaborone Botswana 28 Dr Nimish H Vasoya Head - General Department SANJAYBHAI RAJGURU COLLEGE OF


29 Dr Joseph Djeugap Fovo University of Dschang Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Science (FASA) Department of Plant Protection Plant Pathology Laboratory Cameroon

30 Philippines 31 Dr Ankur Rastogi OPJindal Institute of Technology Raigarh(CG) India 32 Dr Daniel Hailegiorgis Haile Wollo University Dessie Ethiopia 33 Dr Aleksandra K Nowicka MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston Texas United States 34 Dr Fazal Shirazi MD Anderson Cancer Center Texas United States 35 Dr Tahira Naz Centre of excellence in Marine biology karachi University pakistan Pakistan 36 Dr Daniela Roxana Andron Departamentul Drept Privat i tiinele Educaiei Universitatea

Lucian Blaga din Sibiu httpdppdulbsibiuro httpdreptulbsibiurocentrul-ccap tel +40-269-211 602 fax +40-269-235 224 Romania

37 Dr Kabita Kumari Satapathy OPJindal Institute of TechnologyRaigarh CG India 38 Dr Chandan Kumar Sarkar IUBAT- International University of Business Agriculture and

Technology Bangladesh 39 Dr AZAD ALI Department of Zoology BN College Dhubri India 40 Dr Narayan Ramappa Birasal India 41 Dr Rabindra Kayastha Kathmandu University Nepal 42 Dr Rasmeh Ali AlHuneiti Brunel university United Kingdom 43 Dr Florian Marcel Nuta Faculty of EconomicsDanubius University of Galati Romania 44 Dr Salman Shahza Institute of Clinical Psychology University of Karachi Pakistan 45 Dr Suchismita Satapathy School of Mechanical Engineering KIIT University India 46 Dr Lowida L Alcalde Suzhou North America High School China Philippines 47 Dr Juliana Ajdini Department of Social Work and Social Policy Faculty of Social Science

University of Tirana Albania 48 Dr Arfan Yousaf Department of Clinical Sciences Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences

PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi Pakistan Pakistan 49 Dr Rajamohan Natarajan Chemical Engineering |Faculty of Engineering Sohar university Oman 50 Dr TARIQ JAVED Lahore Pharmacy College (LMDC) University of Health Sciences Lahore

Pakistan Pakistan 51 Dr Rogers Andrew Sokoine University of Agriculture Tanzania United Republic of 52 Dr Irena yang Koprinskal School of Information Technologies Australia

Vol 41 No 1 (2018) Table of Contents Articles

Tri Hita Karana Culture as a Moderate Influence of Public Accounting Firm Competition and Machiavellian Personality on the Auditor Independence Putu Putri Prawitasari I Made Sadha Suardikha Maria Mediatrix Ratna Sari I Nyoman Wijana Asmara Putra

PDF 1-24

Practice of Classroom Assessments for Learning GWTC Kandamby

PDF 25-38

Belief in the Law of Karma Moderate the Influence of the Tax System on Perceptions of Tax Evasion on Individual Taxpayers in All of the Tax Office Bali Area Ida Ayu Trisna Yudi Asri I Wayan Ramantha I Dewa Gede Dharma Suputra Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi

PDF 39-50

The Correlation of BRCA 1 Promoter Methylation and Clinicopathological Appearance in Breast Cancer Sony Sugiharto Muh Nasrum Massi Syariffudin Wahid Andi Fachruddin Benyamin Nurjati Chaerani Siregar Upik Anderiani Miskad William Hamdani Mochammad Hatta Ilhamjaya Patellongi Rosdiana Natsir

PDF 51-60

Inhibitory Efficacy of Geranium stepporum L extracts Against Some Species of Bacteria and Fungi Mostafa Qahtan Mosataf Sirwan Hassan Salih Talib Ouaid Alkhazraji

PDF 61-75

Analysis of the Citizenrsquos Political Opinion and Behavior to Determine the Candidate of the Mosque Leader Indicator in the City of Kupang NTT Province Nandang Saefudin Zenju Abubakar Iskandar

PDF 76-91

Motivation and Modified Commitment Effect of Internal Control System and Participation of Budgeting Preparation on Individual Performance Mertyani Sari Dewi I Wayan Suartana

PDF 92-100

The Conservation Agreement as an Ecosystem-based Adaptation Strategy to Address Climate Change in Silonay Calapan Oriental Mindoro Philippines Almira Geles B Lumbres

PDF 101-115

Effectiveness of Farmer Field School Training in Promoting Adoption of Best Agricultural Practices by Smallholder Coffee Farmers in Kenya Jonathan Luusa James Obara Stephen Wambugu

PDF 116-132

Minimizing Total Tardiness in the m-Machine Flow-Shop Problem by Heuristic Algorithms Quang Chieu Ta

PDF 133-147

The Effect of Intelligence Quotient on the Level of Understanding of Accounting with Spiritual Quotient and Adversity Quotient as a Moderating Variables

PDF 148-157

Bevi Libraeni Luh Gede Yadnyana Ketut

The Effectiveness of Studentsrsquo Worksheet Based on Multiple Representations to Increase Science Process Skills Nur Balqis Mutia Zuhdan Kun Prasetyo

PDF 158-166

Knowledge Attitudes and Socio-Cultural Practices that Influence the Control of Cervical Cancer among Women in Uasin Gishu County Kenya Georgine Kemboi John Obiri Charles Mutai

PDF 167-180

A Novel Synthesis of Cefuroxime from 7-amino Cephalosporanic Acid (7-ACA) Nguyen Khanh Tan Nguyen Truc Linh Doan Ngoc Nhuan

PDF 181-187

City as a Museum Issues amp Challenges of Cultural Tourism in Saint Petersburg Shima Hosseininasab Ahmad Feyz

PDF 188-201

Magnitude of Childhood Vaccine Hesitancy and Associated IndividualSocial Group Factors among Parents in Degahbur Town Somali Region Ethiopia Abibakar Sheikaden Berhanu Seyoum Lemessa Oljira

PDF 202-212

Molecular Identification of Endophytic Fungi from Rice (Oryza sativa L) and its Anatagonistic Effect Against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli Resean R Lapuz Jesusa Q Undan Evelyn B Cajucom Jerwin R Undan

PDF 213-219

Exploring Social Construct of Place Attachment among Settlers in Disaster-prone Areas Sharon Feliza Ann Macagba John Ceffrey Eligue Sharmaine Marie Marasigan

PDF 220-233

The Effect of Profitability Institutional Ownership on the Value of the Company with Dividend Policy as a Meditation Ida Ayu Ria Paramita Handayani Dodik Ariyanto Ni Ketut Rasmini Anak Agung Gde Putu Widanaputra

PDF 234-242

Staffing Skills of Public Elementary School Administrators Emiteria Bacay Villamor EdD

PDF 243-273

The IJSBAR is now under consideration for indexing in Thomson Reuters (ISI)

The IJSBAR Published Papers are Indexed listed and abstracted in

Ulrich Google Scholar Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Ulrichs Periodicals Directory Microsoft academic research University of Texas (USA) Stanford University (USA) State University Libraries of Florida (included in 11 universities libraries in Florida)(USA) University of Cambridge (United Kingdom) Simon Fraser University (Canada) University of South Australia (Australia) OAIster database PubZone (ACM SIGMOD) Research gate OCLC World Cat IE Library ( Spain ) Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek (Ezb germany) Simpson University (USA) Columbia University (USA) NEOS library consortium (Canada) University of Melbourne (Australia) Technische Universitaumlt Darmstadt (Germany) University of Gronignen (The Netherlands) University of Liverpool (UK) Universitaumlt Wurzburg (Germany) Academic research (ourGlocal) Issuu Researchbib Journal seekdocstoc ProLearnAcademy ectel07 University of Canterbury (New Zealand) University of Hong Kong Queens University (Canada) Universitaumlt Mainz (Germany) University of Saskatchewan (Canada) The Hong Kong University of Science amp Technology University of Manitoba (Canada) Auckland University of Technology (New Zealand) scribd prorch slideshare mendeley academia Genamics JournalSeek Internet archive Ebookbrowse CiteSeer Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt (Germany) University of Twente (The Netherlands) Universitaumlt Osnabruumlck (Germany) Universitaumlt Marburg (Germany) University of IOWA (USA)

International Journal of Sciences Basic and Applied Research

(IJSBAR)

ISSN 2307-4531 (Print amp Online)

httpgssrrorgindexphpjournal=JournalOfBasicAndApplied

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39

Belief in the Law of Karma Moderate the Influence of the

Tax System on Perceptions of Tax Evasion on Individual

Taxpayers in All of the Tax Office Bali Area

Ida Ayu Trisna Yudi Asria I Wayan Ramanthab I Dewa Gede Dharma

Suputrac Ni Made Dwi Ratnadid

abcd Faculty of Economics and Business University of Udayana Indonesia aEmail dayutrisnayudiasrigmailcom bEmail wayanramanthahotmailcom

cEmail dharmasuputraymailcom dEmail madedwiratnadiyahoocom

Abstract

This research discusses the influence of the tax system on the perception of tax evasion with belief in the law of

karma as a moderation variable Population in this research is individual taxpayers who do business activities or

free work registered in all of the tax office Bali area Incidental sampling method with slovin formula is used to

determine the sample of research Data analysis techniques used in the research are simple linear regression and

moderated regression analysis The results of testing the first hypothesis prove that the tax system negatively

affect the perception of tax evasion The results of testing the second hypothesis prove that belief in the law of

karma can strengthen the negative effects of the tax system on the perception of tax evasion

Keywords Perceptions of tax evasion tax system belief in the law of karma

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corresponding author

International Journal of Sciences Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) (2018) Volume 41 No 1 pp 39-50

40

1 Introduction

The tax system adopted in Indonesia of tax collection is self assessment system This system gives authority

trust responsibility to the taxpayers to calculate pay and self-report the amount of tax to be paid [32] On the

other hand this system can create a huge opportunity for taxpayers to cheat manipulate the calculation of tax

amounts and embezzle the amount of taxes that should be paid [10] Tax evasion behavior is the most common

occurrence in Indonesia because the tax system is not working well Parties involved in tax evasion cases

ranging from individual taxpayers company and tax officials Various negative impacts arise due to tax evasion

behavior such as tax revenues in Indonesia from year to year continue to not meet the targets set by the

government [28] In addition Indonesias tax ratio value to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is low only about 12

percent [12] This tax evasion behavior can also hinder the development and achievements of welfare for the

community With so many cases of tax evasion in Indonesia it can cause various perceptions about tax evasion

behavior on the basis of facts that existed so far According to attribution theory individual perceptions are

formed by external and internal factors [21] In this study taxpayers will behave in accordance with their views

on tax evasion influenced by external conditions that are related to the implementation of the tax system

Several studies related to the tax system on perceptions of tax evasion have been done by many previous

researchers However the results of these studies still show contradictory results (inconsistent) between

researchers with another researcher Those inconsistencies of research results that motivate researchers to do

more research of the influence the tax system on perceptions of tax evasion Murray [15] explains that to be able

to reconcile conflicting results requires a contingency approach to identify other variables acting as a mediating

or moderating variable In this researcher using belief in the law of karma as a moderating variable because of

the way individuals judge something in particular tax evasion behavior is ethical or unethical cannot be

separated from his beliefs [9] Individuals who have faith belief in the law of karma are expected to improve

morale and ethics in social life [14] Strong religious beliefs are also expected to prevent illegal behavior

through feelings of guilt especially in this case tax evasion behavior [9] This is also based on the theory of

planned behavior that explains that there is a control belief that can prevent a person in performing an action [1]

Thus individuals who have faith belief in the law of karma can inhibit and limit the individuals intention to

practices tax evasion so as to shape a perception of tax evasion behavior is unethical

2 Literature Review and Research Hypothesis

21 Theory of Planned Behavior

This theory explains that a personrsquos behavior is influenced by the intention of individuals to behave so that can

be used as a model in predicting individual intentions in taking an action [1] Theory of planned behavior

divides three kinds of reasons that can influence the actions taken by the individuals namely behavioral belief

normative belief and control belief [2]

22 Attribution Theory

This attribution theory explains how individual perceive other individual differently depending on the


41

individuals sense of meaning to a behavior It states that when an individual observes the behavior of another

individual the individual will try to determine whether it is internal or external The behavior caused by internal

factors is a behavior that is believed to be under the personal control of the individual itself whereas the

behavior caused by external factors is behavior that is influenced from the outside the behavior of individuals is

seen as a result of the pressure of the situation or the environment The determination of whether the behavior is

caused by internal or external factors is influenced by three factors 1) Differences 2) Consensus and 3)

Consistency [21]

23 Perception of Tax Evasion

Robbins and Judge [21] to define perception as a process whereby individuals organize and interpret sensory

impressions to give meaning to the environment Rahayu [20] explains that tax evasion is an active business of

the taxpayers in terms of reducing abolishing illegal manipulation of tax debt or escaping not to pay taxes as

already owed according to the rules of law In addition research conducted by McGee [13] found that tax

evasion has three views 1) tax evasion is considered unethical 2) tax evasion has been always ethical 3) tax

evasion can be viewed ethically or not depending on the situation and existing conditions

24 Tax System

According to Waluyo [32] tax collection system is divided into 3 (three) namely 1) official assessment system

2) self assessment system 3) with holding system The system used in Indonesia is self-assessment system

where taxpayers an active role in calculating paying and reporting the tax so that the government in this case

only acts as the controller of taxable activities

25 Belief in the Law of Karma

The term karma means action work or deed All sorts of action whether mental verbal or physical is regarded

as karma It includes all in the phrase both thought word and deed According to the law of karma everything

we do say or think will have an effect and will in time return to us [4] This law of karma is universally

unavoidable It stated ldquouniversalrdquo because there is no work or action without giving result even though the result

can be big medium or small If more people realize and understand how important this law of karma is where

doing good will bring good results then the world will be safe and peaceful [27] The law of karma as the basic

of self-control is the main thought to improve human morals and ethics in social life By understanding the

essence the law of karma it is impossible for human beings to commit disgraceful acts that are clearly out of

religious teachings and cause harm or destruction for others [14]

26 The Effect of The Tax System on Perceptions of Tax Evasion

Implementation of the tax system is an external factor that can affect the taxpayers perceptions of tax evasion

behavior This is supported by attribution theory which explains that individual perceptions are formed by

external and internal factors [21] Therefore if the tax system running well then the tax evasion behavior tends

to be regarded as unethical or unreasonable behavior Conversely if the tax system is not systematized between


42

the taxpayers and tax authorities so that tax evasion behavior is considered as behavior that tends to be ethical or

reasonable to do This is in accordance with research conducted by Dewi and Merkusiwati [5] Sariani and his

colleagues [24] Paramita and Budiasih [17] Utami [31] Maghfiroh and Fajarwati [11] Permatasari and Laksito

[18] Silaen and his colleagues [25] which states that the tax system negatively affect the taxpayers perceptions

on tax evasion behavior Based on the theory and the findings of the previous studies the first hypothesis of this

study is

H1 The tax system has a negative effect on the tax evasion perception

27 Belief in The Law of Karma to Moderate The Influence of The Tax System on Perceptions of Tax

Evasion

The tax system can work as expected if the implementation is supported by the moral level of taxpayers which

can be reflected from the extent of belief in the law of karma taxpayers Confidence in the law of karma can

limit the individuals intention to do tax evasion so as to establish the perceptions that tax evasion behavior is

unethical Strong religious beliefs are expected to prevent illegal behavior through feelings of guilt especially in

the case of tax evasion [8] Belief in the law of karma tends to encourage a persons willingness to pay taxes so

as to influence taxpayers to have the perception that tax evasion is unethical especially if the tax system in

Indonesia is running well the tendency of taxpayers to tax evasion behavior is considered unethical [19] Based

on the findings of the previous researches the second hypothesis of this study is

H2 Belief in the law of karma weakens the influence of the tax system on the perception of tax evasion

3 Research Concepts

The concept framework of this study is presented in Figure 1 below

Figure 1 Concept Framework

4 Methodology of Research

This research uses a direct survey method with questionnaire technique by giving a set of written statement to

the respondent to answer as the basis of primary data collection The results of the answers then measured by a

Likert scale on the choice of respondents answers were assessed by 5 scales With a value of 1 (strongly

disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (neutral) 4 (agree) 5 (strongly agree) The population in this research is individual


43

taxpayers who do business activity or free work registered in all of the tax office Bali area (Bali is a province of

Republic of Indonesia) The sampling technique uses in this research is non probability sampling with incidental

sampling method Determination of the number samples taken using slovin formula This study establishes a

tolerance limit of 10 sampling error which means the sampling accuracy rate is 90 so the number of samples

in this research if calculated by the slovin formula to 100 respondents Data analysis conducted in this study

using simple linear regression analysis and moderated regression analysis Before using regression analysis

techniques the classical assumption test should be applied to the model to be used In addition this study

performs F statistical tests determination coefficient test and t statistical test The regression equation model is

as follows

a Simple linear regression equation model

Y= α + β1X1 + ε

b Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA) equation model

Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where

Y = Perceptions of Tax Evasion

α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System

M1 = Belief in the law of karma

X1 M1 = Interaction between tax system with belief in law of karma

β1 - β3 = Regression coefficient of independent variables

ε = Error Other variables not identified in the model

41 Operationalization of Variables

441 Dependent Variable

The perception of tax evasion is how individuals in organizing and interpreting tax evasion actions are ethical or

unethical influenced by the environment surrounding the individual [21] In this study variables were measured

by indicators adjusted for research conducted by Fagbemi and his colleagues [6] Indicators uses in this study

are tax rates fairness discrimination benefits of taxes paid management of tax money and law enforcement

442 Independent Variable


44

The tax system is a reflection of social economic and public policy that has been established by the

government generally in the form of legislation that determines the course of action to be implemented which is

reflected in the various decisions issued by the relevant agencies [33] In this study variable were measured by

indicators adapted for research conducted by Nickerson and his colleagues [16] Indicators used in this study are

justice rates usage procedures tax money mishandling and socialization

443 Moderate Variable

Belief in the law of karma is a belief in the spiritual law governing life experiences through the principles of

causality action and reaction justice and personal responsibility [4] Measurement of variable belief in law of

karma was performed using a questionnaire adapted for research conducted by Chadha and his colleagues [3]

Dimensional measurements used in this study are experience intellectual and consequences

5 Result

51 Data Description

The data collection is done by visiting respondents directly to submit and collect back questionnaires Of the

100 copies of the questionnaires distributed by researchers 100 copies of the questionnaire were returned Thus

the number of questionnaires that can be processed as many as 100 copies of the questionnaire The calculation

of the data results in a 100 percent response rate and a 100 percent useable response rate

52 Characteristics of Respondents

This study is a profile of 100 respondents who participated in the filling questionnaire The description of the

profile of respondents in this study are age gender level of education and whether or not to attended tax

training In detail the characteristics of respondents can be shown in Table 1 below

Table 1 Characteristic of Respondent

Based on Table 1 shows that the majority of respondents tend to have aged over 30 years male gender


45

dominated by university graduate and the majority of respondents never attended tax training

53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test

A questionnaire is said to be valid if the question or statements in the questionnaire are able to express

something that is measured by the questionnaire the higher the validity of a questionnaire the smaller the

variant of the error [7] If the correlation of the total score item is greater than (030) then the research

instruments are said to be valid with a significance level of 005 [26] The instruments in this study consisting of

items of the taxation system statement (X1) belief in the law of karma (M1) and tax evasion perceptions (Y) are

valid This is because the correlation between the score of each instrument with a score of magnitude above

030

532 Test Reliability

Reliability test with Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) using Reliability Analysis Statistical and

questionnaire passed test of reliability if each instrument has Cronbachs Alpha value greater than 0 70 [26] All

instruments in this study are said to be reliable in which the whole instrument is suitable for collecting data The

value of Cronbachs Alphagt 070 indicates that such measurements can provide consistent results when re-

measured of the same subject at different times

54 Classic assumption test

541 Normality test

To test the normality of a data is done by looking at Asymp Sig (2-tailed) If the value of Asymp Sig (2-tailed)

more than 005 then H0 is accepted and means the data distribution is said to be normal [30] Normality test

results are shown in Table 2 below

Table 2 Normality Test Result

Source data processed (2018)

Based on Table 2 be able shown that the value of Asymp The sig (2-tailed) model of the first equation is 0074

and the second equation model is 0075 greater than the 005 significance level This shows that both equation

models are normally distributed


46

542 Heteroscedasticity Test

Heterocedasticity test aims to test whether the regression model of variance inequality occurs from one

observation to another observation A fit model regression is a model that does not contain symptoms of

heteroscedasticity If the significance level t of the regression results has an absolute residual to the independent

variable greater than 005 the regression model involved does not contain symptoms of heteroscedasticity [30]

The results of the heterocedasticity test are shows in Table 3 below

Table 3 Heterocedasticity Test Result


Based on Table 3 it is known that the value of significance of each variable in both regression models is greater

than 005 so it can be concluded that the regression model in this study is free from symptoms of

heteroscedasticity

55 Regression Result

551 Simple Linear Regression

The result of the analysis is shows in Table 4 below

Table 4 Simple Linear Regression Analysis


Based on Table 4 it can be shown that the magnitude of the resulting value of F arithmetic amounted to 236466


47

with a significance level of 0000 smaller than α = 005 Thus this research model is worthy to be used for the

proof of the hypothesis formed In Table 4 can be seen that the magnitude of R-Square is 0707 which means

that as much as 707 percent of the dependent variable perceptions of tax evasion can be explained by the tax

system While the rest of 293 percent influenced by other variables that are not included into this research

model

Besides Table 4 it can be seen that the value of t arithmetic for the tax system variables is -15377 with a

significance level of 0000 where the value is less than 005 and has a regression coefficient value of -1518 so

that the first hypothesis (H1) accepted the tax system negatively affect on perceptions of tax evasion This

indicates that if the tax system running well then the perceptions of tax evasion behavior owned by individual

taxpayers who do business activities or free work in tax office Bali area tend to be more unethical The results of

this study are also consistent with the results of research conducted by Dewi and Merkusiwati [5] Sariani and

his colleagues [24] Paramita and Budiasih [17] Utami [31] Maghfiroh and Fajarwati [11] Permatasari and

Laksito [18] Silaen and his colleagues [25]

552 Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA)

The results of testing the influence the tax system on the perception of tax evasion moderated by the variable of

belief in the law of karma can be shows in Table 5

Table 5 Moderated Regression Analysis


Based on Table 5 it be able shown that the magnitude of the resulting value of F arithmetic is 106677 with a

significance level of 0000 smaller than α = 005 Thus this research model is worthy to be used to verify the

hypothesis formed In Table 5 it be able shown that the value of adjusted R2 is 0762 which means that 762

percent of the dependent variable perceptions of tax evasion can be explained by the tax system moderated and

belief in the law of karma while 238 influenced by other variables not presented in this research model


48

Besides Table 5 it can be seen that the magnitude of t arithmetic for interaction the tax system and belief in the

law of karma is -3155 with a significance level of 0002 where the value is less than 005 This proves that

belief in the law of karma is able to moderate the influence the tax system on perceptions of tax evasion for

individual taxpayers who do business activities or free work in the tax office Bali area

The results of the hypothesis test shown that the influence of the tax system on the perceptions of tax evasion

tend to be more unethical after being interacted with belief in the law of karma This is supported by the result

of the analysis which shows that the significance value of β2 is 0276 which is bigger than the specified

significance level (α = 005) and the significance value of β3 is 0002 which is smaller than the specified

significance level (α = 0 05) so it can be concluded that the moderation type of this research is pure moderation

While the value of regression coefficient β1 is -0213 and β3 value regression coefficient is -0051 which can

indicate that the role of moderation of belief in the law of karma variable is to strengthen the negative effects of

the tax system on the perceptions of tax evasion This means that the application of good tax system supported

by a belief in the law of karma will lower the ethical perceptions of tax evasion for individual taxpayers who do

business activities or free work in tax office Bali area The results of this hypothesis testing are consistent with

research conducted by Rosianti and Mangoting [22] Hafizhah and his colleagues [9] and Safitri [23] The

religious values held by most individuals are generally expected to effectively prevent negative attitudes and

encourage positive attitudes in the daily life of the individual so as to motivate taxpayers to voluntarily comply

with tax regulations [29]

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the findings the first hypothesis finding is tax system has a negative effect on perceptions of tax

evasion This means that if the tax system is good performance so that the perceptions shaped from tax evasion

behavior will tend to be unethical The second hypothesis finding is belief in the law of karma can strengthen

the influence negatively of the tax system on perceptions of tax evasion This means that the application of good

tax system supported by a belief in the law of karma will increase the unethical perception of tax evasion

behavior

This research has limitations such as perceptions of individual taxpayers who do business activities or free work

registered only in tax office Bali area so that it cannot be generalized to all perceptions taxpayers in Indonesia

Further research can use this research as one of the reference concerning taxpayers perception registered in other

area tax office This study uses a self-assessment questionnaire (respondents assess themselves) so it is feared

that respondents will only direct the response in a positive direction

Further research can be developed through experiments and interviews to provide more convincing research

results Adjusted R2 value is 0762 this shows that 762 perceptions of tax evasion influenced by tax system

and belief in the law of karma variables while 238 influenced by other variables not presented in this research

model This becomes an opportunity for further researchers to develop research related to other factors that

influence perceptions of tax evasion


49

References

[1] I Ajzen (1991) ldquoThe Theory of Planned Behaviorrdquo Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes Vol 5 pp 179-211 1991

[2] (2005) Attitudes Personality and Behavior (2nd edition) Berkshire UK Open University

Press-McGraw Hill Education 2005 pp 118

[3] N Chadha G Jain and V R Krishnan (2013) ldquoThe Effect of Optimism and Belief in the Law of

Karma on Transformational Leadershiprdquo International Journal on Vedic Foundations of Management

1(1) pp 51-66 2013

[4] P Chakraborty (2014) ldquoThe Law of Karma and Salvationrdquo International Journal of Humanities amp

Social Science Studies 1(3) pp 193-195 2014

[5] N KT J Dewi and N K L A Merkusiwati (2017) ldquoFaktor-Faktor Yang Memengaruhi Persepsi

Wajib Pajak Mengenai Etika Atas Penggelapan Pajak (Tax Evasion)rdquo E-Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas

Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017

[6] TO Fagbemi O M Uadiale and A O Noah (2010) ldquoThe Ethics of Tax Evasion Perceptual

Evidence from Nigeriardquo Eropean Journal of Social Sciences 17(3) pp 360-371 2010

[7] I Ghozali (2016) Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS Semarang Badan Penerbitan

Universitas Diponegoro 2016 pp 52

[8] H G Grasmick K Kinsey and J K Cochran (1991) ldquoDenomination Religiosity and Compliance

With The Law A Study of Adultsrdquo Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30 (1) pp 99-107

1999

[9] I Hafizhah Y M Basri and Rusli (2016) ldquoPengaruh Etika Uang (Money Ethics) Terhadap

Kecurangan Pajak (Tax Evasion) Dengan Religiusitas Gender dan Materialisme Sebagai Variabel

Moderasi (Studi Pada WP OP Yang Melakukan Kegiatan Usaha Atau Pekerjaan Bebas di Pekanbaru)rdquo

JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016

[10] N Hasanah and S Indriani (2013) ldquoEfektifitas Pelaksanaan Self Assessment System dan Modernisasi

Administrasi Pajak Terhadap Kualitas Pelayanan Pajak (Studi Kasus Pada KPP Kebon Jeruk 1)rdquo

Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Akuntansi 8 (1) pp17-35 2013

[11] D Maghfiroh and D Fajarwati (2016) ldquoPersepsi Wajib Pajak Mengenai Pengaruh Keadilan Sistem

Perpajakan dan Sanksi Perpajakan Terhadap Penggelapan Pajak (Survey Terhadap UMKM di

Bekasi)rdquo JRAK 7 (1) pp 39 ndash 55 2016

[12] F M Marta (2016) ldquoPajak Gayus Tax Amnestyrdquo Internet wwwekonomikompascom April 19

2016 [May 152017]

[13] R W McGee (2006) ldquoThree View on The Ethics of Tax Evasionrdquo Journal of Bussiness 67(1) pp

15-35

[14] I A B Munidewi (2017) ldquoAkuntabilitas Dalam Perspektif Ajaran Karma Phala Sebagai Pedoman

Untuk Membangun Karakter Auditorrdquo Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis 12(1) pp 54-64 2016

[15] D Murray (1990) ldquoThe Performance Effect of Participative Budgeting An Integration of Intervening

and Moderating Variablesrdquo Behaviour Research in Accounting Vol 2 pp 102-121 1990

[16] Nickerson P Inge R W McGee (2009) ldquoPresenting the Dimensionality of An Ethics Scale


50

Pertaining to Tax Evasionrdquo Journal of Legal Ethical and Regulatory Issues 12(1) pp 1-14 2009

[17] A A M P Paramita and I G A N Budiasih (2016) ldquoPengaruh Sistem Perpajakan Keadilan dan

Teknologi Perpajakan pada Persepsi Wajib Pajak Mengenai Penggelapan Pajakrdquo E- Jurnal Akuntansi

Universitas Udayana 17(2) pp 1030 ndash 1056 2016

[18] I Permatasari and H Laksito (2013) ldquoMinimalisasi Tax Evasion Melalui Tarif Pajak Teknologi dan

Infromasi Perpajakan Keadilan Sistem Perpajakan dan Ketepatan Penglokasian Pengeluaran

Pemerintah (Studi Empiris pada Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi di Wilayah KPP Pratama Pekanbaru

Senapelan)rdquo Diponegoro Journal of Accounting 2 (2) pp1 ndash 10 2013

[19] H Putri A R Tanjung and S Azhari (2017) ldquoPengaruh Sistem Perpajakan Diskriminasi Kepatuhan

dan Pengetahuan Perpajakan Terhadap Persepsi Wajib Pajak Mengenai Etika Penggelapan Pajakrdquo

JOM Fekon 4 (1) pp 2045 ndash 2058 2017

[20] S K Rahayu (2010) Perpajakan Indonesia Edisi PertamaYogyakarta Graha Ilmu 2010 pp 47

[21] S P Robbins and T Judge (2015) Perilaku Organisasi Edisi 16 Jakarta Salemba Empat 2015 pp

103

[22] C Rosianti and Y Mangoting (2014) ldquoPengaruh Money Ethics Terhadap Tax Evasion dengan

Intrinsic dan Extrinsic Religiosity sebagai Variabel Moderatingrdquo Tax amp Accounting Review4(1) pp

1-11 2014

[23] A Safitri (2018) ldquoPengaruh Religiusitas dan Detection Rate Terhadap Penggelapan Pajakrdquo E-Journal

Akuntansi 6(1) 2018

[24] P Sariani M A Wahyuni and N L G E Sulindawati (2016) ldquoPengaruh Keadilan Sistem

Perpajakan Diskriminasi dan Biaya Kepatuhan Terhadap Persepsi Wajib Pajak Mengenai Etika

Penggelapan Pajak (Tax Evasion) pada KPP Pratama Singarajardquo Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas

Pendidikan Ganesha 6(3) 2016

[25] C Silaen Y T Basri and Azhari (2015) ldquoPengaruh Sistem Perpajakan Diskriminasi Teknologi dan

Informasi Perpajakan Terhadap Persepsi Wajib Pajak Mengenai Etika Penggelapan Pajak (Tax

Evasion)rdquo Jom FEKON 2(2) pp 1-15 2015

[26] Sugiyono (2013) Metode Penelitian Bisnis Bandung Alfabeta 2013 pp 188

[27] K Suhardana (2010) Karmaphala (Menciptakan Karma Baik Menurut Kitab Suci Hindu) Surabaya

Paramita 2013 pp 19

[28] Y Sukmana (2017) ldquoMeski ada Tax Amnesty Penerimaan Pajak Tak Capai Target di 2016rdquo Internet

wwwbisniskeuangankompascom Jan 03 2017 [May 15 2017]

[29] B Torgler (2006) ldquoThe Importance of Faith Tax Morale and Religiosityrdquo Journal of Economic

Behavior and Organization Vol 16 pp 131-147

[30] M S Utama (2011) Buku Ajar Aplikasi Analisis Kuantitatif Denpasar Sastra Utama 2011 pp 11

[31] P D Utami (2016) ldquoPengaruh Tarif Pajak Teknologi dan Informasi Perpajakan dan Keadilan Sistem

Perpajakan Terhadap Penggelapan Pajak (Studi Empiris WPOP Yang Melakukan Kegiatan Usaha di

Kota Padang) rdquo Jurnal Akuntansi UNP 4 (1) 2016

[32] Waluyo (2011) Perpajakan Indonesia Edisi 10 Buku 1 Jakarta Salemba Empat 2011 pp 17

[33] M Zain (2007) Manajemen Perpajakan Jakarta Salemba Empat 2007 pp 24

Layout Editors amp Copyeditors 1 Dr Nimish H Vasoya Head - General Department SANJAYBHAI RAJGURU COLLEGE OF


2 Dr Florian Marcel Nuta Faculty of EconomicsDanubius University of Galati Romania 3 Dr Lowida L Alcalde Suzhou North America High School China Philippines

Editorial Board Members and Reviewers 1 Associate Professor Mohammad Othman Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers 2 Prof Dr Ayhan Esi Adiyaman University Science and Art Faculty Department of Mathematics

Turkey 3 prof Dr Abdul Haseeb Ansar International Islamic University Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 4 Prof Dr Felina Panas Espique Professor School of Teacher Education Saint Louis University

Baguio City Dean of the School of Teacher Education Bonifacio St Baguio City 2600 (074) 447-0664 (landline) Mobile Number 099-897-63236 Philippines

5 Prof Dr Indrani Pramod Kelkar Department of MathematicsChief Mentor Acharya Institute of Technology Soldevanahalli Hesaraghatta Main Road Banavara Post Bangalore- 560 107 Cell 9164685067 India

6 Prof Dr Samir El-Sherif College of Agriculture Cairo University Egypt 7 Prof Dr Hye-Kyung Pang Business Administrations Department Hallym University 1

Ockcheon-dong Chooncheon-si Kangwon-do (office) 82-33-248-3312 (cell) 82-10-5311-6131 Korea Republic of

8 Prof Dr Aghareed M Tayeb Chemical Engineering Dept Faculty of Engineering Minia University Minia Egypt

9 Prof Dr Hamed Hmeda Kassem Department of Zoology Faculty of Science Benghazi University Libya

10 Prof Dr Ramel D Tomaquin Dean CAS Surigao Del Sur State University Tandag City Surigao Del Sur Philippines

11 ProfDr Amer Abdulrahman Taqa basic science Department College of Dentistry Mosul University Iraq

12 Prof Dr Maria Luisa A Valdez Dean of Colleges and Head of Graduate School Batangas State University ARASOF Nasugbu Campus Nasugbu Batangas Philippines

13 Prof Dr Iryna Morozova Romance-Germanic Faculty Odesa Mechnikov University Ukraine 14 Prof Dr Manu Rathee Head of Department Department of Prosthodontics and Crown amp Bridge

Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences Pt B D Sharma University of Health Sciences Rohtak Haryana India

15 Prof Dr Mahmoud Younis Mohammed Taha Department of Dental Basic Sciences College of Dentistry Mosul University Iraq

16 Prof Dr Akbar Masood Dean Faculty of Biological Sciences Head Department of Biochemistry the University of Kashmir India

17 Asso Prof Mario Amar Fetalver College of Arts amp Sciences Romblon State University Philippines

18 Asso Prof Fateh Mebarek-Oudina Algeria 19 Asso Prof Zakaria Ahmed PRIMEASIA UNIVERSITY MICROBIOLOGY DEPARTMENT HBR

TOWER 9 BANANI DHAKA 1213 Bangladesh 20 Associate Professor Zaira Wahab Iqra University Pakistan 21 Associate Professor Dr KULDEEP NARAIN MATHUR SCHOOL OF QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE

UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA Malaysia 22 Asso Prof Evangelos P Hinis National Technical University of Athens - NTUA Greece
















PDF 1-24


PDF 25-38


PDF 39-50


PDF 51-60


PDF 61-75


PDF 76-91


PDF 92-100


PDF 101-115


PDF 116-132


PDF 133-147


PDF 148-157



PDF 158-166


PDF 167-180


PDF 181-187


PDF 188-201


PDF 202-212


PDF 213-219


PDF 220-233


PDF 234-242


PDF 243-273





(IJSBAR)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39








Abstract









------------------------------------------------------------------------



40

1 Introduction




































41







Consistency [21]








24 Tax System





















42






study is



Evasion










3 Research Concepts









43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19


























PDF 1-24


PDF 25-38


PDF 39-50


PDF 51-60


PDF 61-75


PDF 76-91


PDF 92-100


PDF 101-115


PDF 116-132


PDF 133-147


PDF 148-157



PDF 158-166


PDF 167-180


PDF 181-187


PDF 188-201


PDF 202-212


PDF 213-219


PDF 220-233


PDF 234-242


PDF 243-273





(IJSBAR)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39








Abstract









------------------------------------------------------------------------



40

1 Introduction




































41







Consistency [21]








24 Tax System





















42






study is



Evasion










3 Research Concepts









43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19













PDF 158-166


PDF 167-180


PDF 181-187


PDF 188-201


PDF 202-212


PDF 213-219


PDF 220-233


PDF 234-242


PDF 243-273





(IJSBAR)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39








Abstract









------------------------------------------------------------------------



40

1 Introduction




































41







Consistency [21]








24 Tax System





















42






study is



Evasion










3 Research Concepts









43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












(IJSBAR)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39








Abstract









------------------------------------------------------------------------



40

1 Introduction




































41







Consistency [21]








24 Tax System





















42






study is



Evasion










3 Research Concepts









43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












40

1 Introduction




































41







Consistency [21]








24 Tax System





















42






study is



Evasion










3 Research Concepts









43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












41







Consistency [21]








24 Tax System





















42






study is



Evasion










3 Research Concepts









43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












42






study is



Evasion










3 Research Concepts









43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












43









as follows


Y= α + β1X1 + ε


Y= α + β1X1 + β2M1 + β3X1M1 + ε

Where


α = Constants

X1 = The Tax System













44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












44











5 Result

51 Data Description












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












45


53 Test Instruments

531 Validity test







030








541 Normality test










46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












46











heteroscedasticity








47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












47





model




















48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












48

























behavior












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












49

References







1(1) pp 51-66 2013





Udayana 18(3) pp 2534-2564 2017







1999




JOM FEKON 3(1) pp 1652 - 1665 2016








2016 [May 152017]


15-35







50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19












50














103



1-11 2014


Akuntansi 6(1) 2018










Paramita 2013 pp 19











ISSN (Print) 2307-4531

Documents

Transcript of ISSN (Print) 2307-4531