Tax is something contribution public to countries that are must or force owed by private persons or body for state needs prosperity of the people ( Law Republic of Indonesia Number 28 of 2007 concerning Provision General And Tax Procedures .). According to Santo and Muid in his research in 2014 stated that tax will become reducing load _ income must tax Because from definition the said that tax is something mandatory contribution . _ Another case If reviewed from perpetrator effort , that tax will reduce profit company as component cost (Paniadi, 2020) .

Because of taxes considered as possible load reduce profit company , then in in practice , a lot very must tax that does resistance tax in a manner aggressive . Resistance tax divided become a number of type such as tax evasion and tax avoidance. tax evasion is action avoidance tax but No in accordance with law or applicable rules , examples of tax evasion is do action that with on purpose No report obligation or remove a number of transaction so tax company become more low . this tax evasion normal called as embezzlement tax . Meanwhile, tax avoidance is action avoidance still tax according to applicable law. Tax avoidance rely on imperfection later laws Can compulsory use tax (Winata, 2014) .

According to Sari and Martani (2010) in ( Tandean, 2015) good corporate governance is good governance in an organization based company with ethics professional in do effort . GCG understanding is exists reception will importance something device regulation or good governance for arrange relationships , functions and interests various party in affairs business .

Proxy from GCG there a number of among them� that is ownership institutional , the proportion of the board of commissioners independent , and audit committee . Besides it 's big its small A companies can too affect tax avoidance measures , p This submitted to research Kurniasih & Sari (2013) in (Women & Boys, 2017) Because size company can show stable or lack and ability in do activity the business . Growing company big , then will the more become center attention from government so that own trend For obey rule government in avoid the taxation .

METHODOLOGY

Method research used in study This is method study quantitative experiment used in look for influence something variable certain in controlled conditions (Yuliza & Fitri, 2020) . study it also uses technique statistics descriptive regression that is statistics used in data analysis with method describe or describe the data that has been collected as exist and seek exists connection One direction from variable independent to variable dependent (Sugiyono, 2013) .

�� Data used inside study This is quantitative data secondary that is report finance company sector agriculture in 2017 - 2019 earned from the Indonesian Stock Exchange website (www.idx.co.id) and also from the official website company related . Study with quantitative data is producing research number as tool To use explain results research , research Quantitative also uses statistics in processing the data (Kuncoro, 2013) .

Types and Operations Variable

Study This need restricted operationalization the variable , so room scope study This No too broad . as also listed in framework thought , that in the research to be exposed This has two variables consists from variable independent and variable dependent .

Variable independent in study This There is four , where consists from three good corporate governance proxies and one size company that is Ownership Institutional (X1), Proportion of the Board of Commissioners Independent (X2), Audit Committee (X3), and Company Size (X4). And variables dependent in study This� is Tax Avoidance (Y).

Following This is table from operationalization variables that exist in research this :

Table 1

Operationalization Variable

Research Models

�� Model Research conducted _ in study This is as following :

Y=α+β_1 KI+β_2 DKI+β_3 KMA+β_4 Size+e

Description :

Y �� : CETR

α �� : Constant

β _( 1 )-β_5 �� : Coefficient Regression

KI �� : X1 ( Ownership institutional )

DKI �� : X2 ( Proportion of the Board of Commissioners independent )

KMA �� : X3 ( Audit Committee )

Size �� : X4 ( Company Size )

E �� : Error

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Statistics Descriptive

Table 1

Statistics Descriptive

�� Based on results analysis statistics descriptive on the table on can seen that the sample studied denoted with N ie as many as 33 data consisting from 11 companies sector agriculture listed on the IDX from 2017-2019 year . Calculation results in the table can outlined as following :

Ownership institutional

�� In study this , ownership institutional counted with method share ownership share from institutional investors with amount issued shares as done in research (Ulupui, 2016) . In table 4.1.1, ownership institutional own minimum value of 0.1, value maximum of 0.89, the average value (mean) of 0.4450, and standard deviation of 0.30772.

Proportion of the Board of Commissioners Independent

�� The proportion of DKI in the study this is calculated with method share number of commissioners existing independent in the company with amount the entire board of commissioners in the company The same like research conducted by ( Winata, 2014) and Nandasari (2015). So from calculation formula , obtained in table 4.1.1 that the proportion of the board of commissioners independent own minimum value of 0.25, value a maximum of 0.50%, an average value (mean) of 0.3591, and has standard deviation of 0.05607%.

Audit Committee

�� On research In this case , the audit committee is calculated with use proportion external audit committee that is with method share amount member audit committee of outside company with amount whole audit committee , p This The same like research conducted by ( Amaliyah & Herwiyanti, 2019) so that from calculation the produce the values in table 4.1.1 that the audit committee has minimum value of 0.33, value maximum of 0.67, the average value of 0.5859, and standard deviation by 0.14506%.

Company Size

�� On research this size company counted with formula natural logarithm of total assets owned as done in research (Tandean, 2015) . on variables size company This get results calculation in table 4.1.1 that its minimum value of 26.62, value maximum of 31.18, the average value (mean) of 29.13, and standard deviation of 1.24.

Tax Avoidance

�� For tax avoidance variable in research This counted with the formula for the cash effective tax rate (CETR), namely with method share amount taxes paid with profit before taxes , p the also carried out in research (Women & Sons, 2017) , So produce the values listed in table 4.1.1 viz with minimum value of 0.00, value maximum of 1.56, the average value (mean) of 0.3170, and standard deviation of 0.37912.

2. Test Assumptions Classic

Normality Test

Table 3

One Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

�

�� Based on table on the results of the one sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test above , got said that data used normally distributed , because mark significant results in the table the more big of 0.05 or 5% (0.93 > 0.05).

Multicollinearity Test

Table 4

�� Based on table above , multicollinearity test results above , got concluded that No happen correlation between variable independent or No happening multicollinearity , p the because explanation as following :

1. Variable Ownership Institutional (X1) has tolerance value of 0.709 where mark the more big of 0.1 (0.709 > 0.1), and has VIF value of 1.411 which is more small from number 10 (1.411 <10). So , got concluded that on the variable ownership institutional No happen multicollinearity .

2. Variable Proportion of the Board of Commissioners Independent (X2) has tolerance value of 0.947, value the more big of 0.1 (0.947 > 0.1) and has VIF value of 1.056 which is more small out of 10 (1.056 <10). So that can also concluded on the variable the proportion of the board of commissioners independent No there is multicollinearity .

3. Variable Audit Committee (X3) has tolerance value of 0.730 where mark the more big of 0.1 (0.730 > 0.1) and has VIF value of 1.370 which is more small from number 10 (1.370 <10). Then , no there is multicollinearity on variables audit committee .

4. Variable Firm Size (X4) has tolerance value of 0.922 which is more big of 0.1 (0.922 > 0.1) and has VIF value of 1.085 more small out of 10 (1.085 <10). because that , can concluded that in the variable size company No happen multicollinearity .

3. Autocorrelation Test

Table 5

Autocorrelation Test

From the table above , the DW value will be compared to with mark dU , value dU This originate from Durbin Watson table with level significance of 5%. For determination mark dU , then must needed k value ( number variable independent ) with value of N ( amount of research data ). On research This obtained k as many as 4, and N as many as 33, then mark dU from Durbin Watson tables are retrieved is of 1.7298. Based on conditions that have mentioned above , got seen that DW value > dU (2.223 > 1.7298), and DW value < 4-dU (2.223 < 2.2702), then DW test results fulfil condition because DW > dU and DW < 4-dU. because _ that , can concluded that No happen autocorrelation in research this .

2. Heteroscedasticity Test

Table 6

Heteroscedasticity Test

�� Can seen from table on that variable ownership institutional (X1) has mark significance of 0.492 which is the value the more big from 0.05. Then on variables the proportion of the board of commissioners independent (X2) has mark significance 0.072 which is the value the more big from 0.05. Then on variables audit committee (X3) has mark significance of 0.420 whichever is more big from 0.05. And the last variable size company (X4) has mark significance of 0.076 which is more also bigger than 0.05. because matter it can be assumed that data used as a regression model No experience heteroscedasticity .

1. Analysis Multiple Linear Regression

Table 7

Analysis Multiple Linear Regression

From the results table above , then obtained multiple linear equations _ is as following :

CETR=-2.367-0.433INST-0.437DKI-1.418KMA+0.133SIZE

2. Analysis Coefficient Correlation

Table 8

Analysis Coefficient Correlation

�� Based on base taking decision the so obtained results as following :

a. Between variables ownership institutional (X1) with tax avoidance variable (Y), has mark significance of 0.974 which is more big from 0.05 up can concluded that No exists correlation between variables X1 and Y with mark pearson correlation 0.006, then degrees relationship is assessed No exists correlation between variables X1 and Y.

b. The proportion of the board of commissioners independent (X2) with tax avoidance (Y) has mark significance of 0.509 which is more big of 0.05 then No exists correlation between the proportion of the board of commissioners independent with tax avoidance, with mark pearsons obtained of -0.119 or more small of 0.20, then can confirmed that between second variable This No There is connection correlation .

c. on variables audit committee (X3) with tax avoidance (Y) has mark significance of 0.035 which is more small of 0.05, then exists correlation between variables X3 and Y with mark pearson of -0.368 which means between X3 and Y have connection negative with degrees connection correlation weak .

d. on variables size company (X4) with tax avoidance (Y) has mark significance of 0.022 which is more small of 0.05, then between second variable This own correlation , then mark pearsons obtained is of 0.398 which means between size company with tax avoidance have connection positive with degrees connection correlation weak .

3. Analysis Coefficient Determination

Table 9

Analysis Coefficient Determination

From the table on can seen in table R Square is obtained results of 0.378 which means influence variable independent to variable dependent That by 37.8%. This show that variable ownership institutional , the proportion of the board of commissioners independent , audit committee , and size company give contribution to tax avoidance of 37.8% and the remaining 62.2% . is contribution from other variables that are not researched .

CONCLUSION

Based on results research and discussion in section before , then the conclusions reached is as following . Ownership institutional No own influence in a manner Partial to the proxied tax avoidance with CETR formula . Proportion of the Board of Commissioners Independent No own influence in a manner Partial to the proxied tax avoidance with CETR formula . The Audit Committee has influence negative significant in a manner Partial to the proxied tax avoidance with CETR formula. Company size has influence positive significant in a manner Partial to the proxied tax avoidance with CETR formula . kindly simultaneous obtained results that Ownership Institutional , Board of Commissioners Proportion Independent , Audit Committee , and Company Size have influence positive significant against the proxied Tax Avoidance with CETR formula .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amaliyah, F., & Herwiyanti, E. (2019). The Influence of Institutional Ownership, Independent Board of Commissioners, and Audit Committee on Mining Sector Company Value. Journal of Accounting , 9 (3), 187�200.

Kuncoro, M. (2013). Research Methods For Business & Economics: How To Research & Write A Thesis?

Paniadi, A. (2020). THE INFLUENCE OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, INDEPENDENT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND PROFITABILITY ON TAX AVOIDANCE (Empirical Study of Food and Beverage Subsector Companies and Automotive Subsectors Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2016-2018) . UNIVERSITY CODE041060#Buddhidharma University.

Putri, VR, & Putra, BI (2017). The Effect Of Leverage, Profitability, Company Size And Proportion Of Institutional Ownership On Tax Avoidance. Journal Of Competitive Management , 19 (1), 1.

Sugiyono, D. (2013). Educational Research Methods Quantitative, Qualitative and R&D Approaches .

Tandean, VA (2015). The Effect of Good Corporate Governance and Company Size on Tax Avoidance .

Ulupui, PR (2016). The Influence of the Audit Committee, the Proportion of Independent Commissioners, and the Proportion of Institutional Ownership on Tax Avoidance. Udayana University Journal of Accounting , 16 (1), 702�732.

Winata, F. (2014). The Effect of Corporate Governance on Tax Avoidance in Companies Listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange in 2013. Tax & Accounting Review , 4 (1), 162.

Yuliza, A., & Fitri, R. (2020). The Effect of Deferred Tax Expenses and Tax Planning on Profit Management Practices. AKPEM: Journal of Financial Accounting and Government Accounting , 2 (1), 1�5.

Und a ng - Und a ng _ R e pub li k I n don e s i a No. m or 28 Y a 2007 About _ _ _ _ _ _ K e t e n t u a n U - um D a n T a t a C ar a P er a tax . _ _ _ _ _

Agus ti a , D. ( 2013 ) . P e n g a r uh F a k t or good C o r po ra t e Gov er n a n c e , Fr e e C a sh F l ow, D a n L e v e r a ge Ter h a d a p _ M a n a j e m e n L a b a . journal _ A k un t ansi Dan Finance , 15 ( 1 ) , 27�42 . H tt ps :/ / Do i .O r g / 10.9744 /J a k.15.1.27 - 42

A m r il ., E t A l . ( 2015 ) . P e n g a r uh M a n a j e m e n L a ba D a n C o r po ra t e Gov er n a n c e T er h a p _ _ Ag re s i v it a s P a j a k Manufacturing company _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Y a ng L i s ti ng Di B us r a E fe k I n don e s i a (B E I ) Per i ode _ 2011-2013 . _ journal _ Accountancy , Faculty of Economics , Bung Hatta University , Padang . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Annisa , NA (2012). The Effect of Corporate Governance on Tax Avoidance.

Journal Accounting And Auditing, 8 No. 2, 95�189.

Astuti, TP, & Aryani , YES (2016). trend Avoidance Taxes of Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia Registered in Bei in 2001-2014 . Journal Accounting , 20(3), 375�388. Https://Doi.Org/10.24912/Ja.V20i3.4

Stock Exchange . (ND). Www.Idx.Co.Id . Www.Idx.Co.Id

Dewi, N, NK and Jati, I. . (2014). Influence Character Executives , Company Characteristics , and Dimensions of Good Corporate Governance on Tax Avoidance on the Indonesian Stock Exchange . E- Journal Udayana University Accounting , 6.2, 249�260.

Dewi, NM (2019). Influence Ownership Institutional , Board of Commissioners

Independent And Audit Committee Against Avoidance Tax (Tax Avoidance) in Banking Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2012-2016 period . MAXIMUM: Muhammadiyah University Semarang Accounting Media, 9(1), 40�51. Https://Jurnal.Unimus.Ac.Id/Index.Php/ MAX

Diantari , PR, & Ulupui , IA (2016). Influence Audit Committee , Proportions Commissioner Independent , And Proportion Ownership institutional Against Tax Avoidance. E- Journal Accounting , 16(1), 702�732.

Efriyanti , F., Genevine , S., & RISWAN, R. (2012). Analysis Comparison Disclosure and Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility Against Pt. Bank Negara Indonesia (Study