CC BY
20
do the distribution of Business Credit. As it is informed, 30 trillion rupiah has been disbursed by the government for Business Credit program (Tobing, 2015).
The existence of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises might increase taxpayers in Indonesia, but it should be supported by the significant of tax revenue as well. In fact, it does not in line with the tax revenue because there are many Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise taxpayers get problem in the tax compliance. The Directory General of Taxes, Fuad Rahmany, reveals that the potential of tax revenue from Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises is considered to be low from the total of tax revenue; thus entrepreneurs of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises are supposed to pay the tax. Ironically, there are a lot of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises in Indonesia, but they do not report and even pay the tax. The Director of Tax Service Counseling and Public Relation, Krismanto Petrus, details the total number of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises which following the tax regulations are only 20 million (Daud, 2013).
If it is left unchecked, compliance aspects will disappear gradually. Moreover, the target of tax revenue cannot be achieved, and the taxpayer compliance awareness will be very low. Therefore, because the tax should be dynamic, keeping up with developments, the next target of the tax is Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises which should begin knowing tax and contributing to taxpayer compliance. Compliance means willingness to do everything based on either self-awareness or coercion which encourages someone does something as expected (Berutu and Hartono, 2013).
Tax compliance can be influenced by two factors, i.e. internal and external factor. The internal factor is on the willingness of taxpayers themselves to follow the tax regulations. On the other hand, the external factor is from the taxpayer external situation, such as situation and taxpayer environment (Yusro and Kiswanto, 2014).
Regarding to those problems, the government released the Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 about Income Tax for Taxpayers of Certain Gross Earnings on Business Income Received and Generated. This regulation begins since July 1, 2013. It was released to educate people to be more aware of tax administration and to encourage people's contribution to the state.
The benefits of paying tax can directly and indirectly encourage taxpayers to willingly fulfill the taxpayer compliance, thinking that they will get benefits through facilities provided by the government. Automatically, the willing to violate the tax compliance will decrease (Probondari, 2013). However, only some of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises who think that they get the benefits of paying tax; thus they might make the sales below 4.8 billion.
In this case, the research problems proposed are: 1) the effect of tax knowledge towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013, 2) the effect of dimension of justice towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No..46 Year 2013, 3) the effect of perception of tax benefits towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013, 4) the effect of tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
The purpose of this study is to know the effect of tax knowledge towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013, the effect of dimension of justice towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013, the effect of perception of tax benefits towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013, and the effect of tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits towards taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
The research method used in this study is quantitative. The variables used are independent and dependent variables. There are three kinds of independent variables, i.e. tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefit. The dependent variable is taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. The data
used in this study is primary data obtained from questionnaire distribution and data collection in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. The sampling method in this study is purposive sampling based on Personal Taxpayer, ownership of Taxpayer Identification Number, and turnover < 4.8 billion. The questionnaire distribution was distributed on November 23, 2015, and it returned on November 28, 2015. The samples taken were 100 Personal Taxpayers. The technique used to analyze the data is descriptive statistic, data quality testing (validity, reliability, data transformation testing), classical assumption testing (normality, multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity testing), and hypothesis testing (determination coefficient, t-test).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of Descriptive Statistics. Population in this study is taxpayers of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. The sampling technique is purposive sampling with Personal Taxpayers having turnover < 4.8 billion and having Taxpayer Identification Number as the criteria. The questionnaire distribution was given to 125 Personal Taxpayers in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. The questionnaire consists of respondent personal identity and 24 statements. Each of the statements represents variables which are observed. While analyzing the data, selection towards the respondents were done. The respondents who did not meet the criteria were replaced by other respondents fulfilling the criteria which finally 100 respondents were obtained. From the fulfilled and returned questionnaire, the data were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solution) for Windows version 21.0.
In this study, there were 125 questionnaires were distributed in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. From the distributed questionnaires, there were 111 questionnaires which were filled and returned. After the selection process, 100 questionnaires were used. The 89% of the returned questionnaires were then used as the research samples. The number of samples and the rate of returned questionnaire can be seen in this following table.
Table 1 - Number of Samples and the Rate of Returned Questionnaire
Research Location The Number of Questionnaire
Distributed Returned Not Returned Used
Total % Total % Total %
LTC Glodok 90 80 64% 10 8% 72 57,6%
Puri Indah Market 35 31 25% 4 3,2% 28 22,4%
Total 125 111 89% 14 11,2% 100 80%
Table 2 - The Result of Descriptive Statistics of Tax Knowledge
Descriptive Statistics
- N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
X1 1 100 1,00 5,00 3,8500 ,93609
X1 2 100 1,00 5,00 3,2900 ,84441
X1 3 100 1,00 5,00 3,5300 ,85818
X1 4 100 1,00 5,00 3,3100 ,99184
X1 5 100 2,00 5,00 3,6600 ,81921
X1 6 100 1,00 5,00 3,3900 ,87496
X1 7 100 1,00 5,00 3,5900 ,80522
X1 8 100 2,00 5,00 3,6300 ,76085
X1 9 100 1,00 5,00 3,4600 ,95790
Valid N (list-wise) 100
Based on the table, the descriptive statistics of statements about personal tax knowledge, 1 is the minimum score meaning that the respondents strongly disagree and 5 is the maximum score meaning that the respondents strongly agree. The mean score 3 which heads to 4 shows that the respondents tend to agree with the statements relating to the personal tax knowledge. The standard deviation shows how much deviation occurs in the
data towards its mean score. The low standard deviation tends to identify data which tends to be close to its mean score.
Table 3 - The Result of Descriptive Statistics of Dimension of Justice
Descriptive Statistics
- N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
X2 1 100 1,00 5,00 2,6700 1,22314
X2 2 100 1,00 5,00 2,6900 1,16076
X2 3 100 1,00 5,00 2,6000 1,14592
X2 4 100 1,00 5,00 2,6900 1,23660
X2 5 100 1,00 5,00 2,9700 1,16736
Valid N (list-wise) 100
Based on the table above, the descriptive statistics of personal dimension of justice, 1 is the minimum score meaning that the respondents strongly disagree and 5 is the maximum score meaning that the respondents strongly agree. The mean score which heads to 2 shows that the respondents tend to disagree with the statements relating to the personal dimension of justice. The standard deviation shows how much deviation occurs in the data towards its mean score. The low standard deviation tends to identify data which tends to be close to its mean score.
Table 4 - The Result of Descriptive Statistics of Perception of Tax Benefits
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
X3 1 100 1,00 5,00 3,9300 1,05653
X3 2 100 1,00 5,00 3,2700 1,33223
X3 3 100 1,00 5,00 3,3300 1,23137
X3 4 100 1,00 5,00 2,9500 1,20080
Valid N (listwise) 100
Based on the table above, the descriptive statistics of personal perception of tax benefits, 1 is the minimum score meaning that the respondents strongly disagree and 5 is the maximum score meaning that the respondents strongly agree. With the mean score which heads to 3, the respondents tend to be neutral about the statements relating to the individual perception of tax benefits. The standard deviation shows how much deviation occurs in the data towards its mean score. The low standard deviation tends to identify data which tends to be close to its mean score.
Table 5 - The Result of Descriptive Statistics of Taxpayer Compliance in Implementing Government
Regulation No.46 Year 2013
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Y 1 100 1,00 5,00 3,5500 ,72995
Y 2 100 1,00 5,00 3,5500 ,71598
Y 3 100 1,00 5,00 3,3800 ,78855
Y 4 100 1,00 5,00 3,5400 ,78393
Y 5 100 1,00 5,00 3,4700 ,78438
Y 6 100 1,00 5,00 3,5000 ,83485
Valid N (listwise) 100
Based on the table above, the descriptive statistics of taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013, 1 is the minimum score meaning that the respondents strongly disagree and 5 is the maximum score meaning that the respondents strongly agree. With the mean score heading to 3, the respondents tend to be neutral about the statements relating to taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. The standard deviation shows how much deviation occurs in
the data towards its mean score. The low standard deviation tends to identify data which tend to be close to its mean score.
Validity Testing. Validity test is used to measure the accuracy of a questionnaire item. The technique of testing used in validity testing is corrected item — total correlation (Ghozali, 2013). To know whether the data is valid, validity testing is done using SPSS. In this case, there are nine statements relating to tax knowledge which were distributed in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. From the validity testing, it is found that the calculation value of each statement (r calculation) is greater than r table (.1946). Therefore, it can be concluded that each statement is valid to be used in the process of hypothesis testing.
Reliability Testing. Reliability testing is used to measure the consistency of measuring devices used. The reliability testing of each variable can be seen from Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha as the reliability coefficient. According to Sekaran in Priyatno (2013: 30), the reliability which is below .6 is bad, .6-.79 can be accepted, and more than .08 is good.
• The cronbach alpha of tax knowledge variable is .772.
• The cronbach alpha of dimension of justice variable is .76.
• The cronbach alpha of perception of tax benefits variable is .696.
• The taxpayer compliance variable in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 13 shows that it has passed the reliability testing. The cronbach alpha of the taxpayer compliance variable in implementing Government Regulation No.46 is .875.
Normality Testing. Normality testing using Normal Probability Plot graphic is done by looking at the dots distribution of the data. If the points are within the diagonal line, it means that a regression model has fulfilled the normality assumption. This is the graphic of Normal Probability Plot.
Based on the Normal Probability Plot graphic, it can be concluded that the observed data is normal. It can be seen by the dots distribution around the diagonal line that following the diagonal line direction; thus it means that the regression model has fulfilled the normality assumption.
Multicollinearity Testing. Multicollinearity testing is to test whether there is a correlation among independent variables in the regression model. This testing is done calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF) of each independent variable. If the tolerance value is >10 and VIF is <10, the correlation among independent variables can be tolerated (Ghozali, 2013). The result of Multicollinearity testing can be seen in table 6.
Based on the table, it can be seen that the value of VIF for tax knowledge variable is 1.266, dimension of justice variable is 1.472, and the perception of tax benefits variable is 1.368. The VIF value of each variable is less than 10. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no multicollinearity problem in this regression model.
MoiiTtaj PIDt of Regression Standard i red RtsidmJ Dependent Varinblt. Cuiti pliant
Figure 1 - The Result of Normality Testing Using Normal Probability Plot Graphic
Table 6 - The Result of Multicollinearity Testing
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T Sig. Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
(Constant) 14,089 6,629 2,125 ,036
Tax knowledge ,584 ,128 ,446 4,550 ,000 ,790 1,266
1 Dimenson of justice -,116 ,116 -,106 -,999 ,320 ,679 1,472
Perception of tax benefits ,250 ,111 ,229 2,250 ,027 ,731 1,368
a. Predictors: (Constant), tax knowledge, dimension of justice, perception of tax benefits b. Dependent Variable: compliance
Heteroscedasticity Testing. Heteroscedasticity is a condition in which there is variance inequality from the residual in the regression model. A good regression is when there is no heteroscedasticity problem. Heteroscedasticity causes inefficient estimator and very high determination coefficient. A common way used to determine whether a model is free from heteroscedasticity problem is using scatter plot and seeing whether the residual has certain pattern. If the dots in the scatter plot spread with unclear pattern above and below 0 in Y axis, there is no heteroscedasticity problem. The result of scatter plot can be seen in this figure.
Figure 2 - The Result of Heteroscedasticity with Scatter Plot
Based on the figure above, it can be concluded that the dots forms spreading pattern and unclear pattern above and below 0 in Y axis. Therefore, there is no heteroscedasticity problem.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
The Result of Determination Coefficient (R2). The main point of having determination coefficient testing (R2) is to measure how far the model's ability in showing the variance of dependent variables. The value of determination coefficient is between 0 and 1. If the result is > .5, the used model is considered to be quite reliable in making estimation. The result of determination coefficient is as the following.
Table 7 - The Result of Determination Coefficient testing (R )
Model Summary"
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 ,520a ,270 ,247 6,83306
a. Predictors: (Constant), tax knowledge, dimension of justice, perception of tax benefits
b. Dependent Variable: compliance
From the table, the test shows the magnitude of the coefficient of multiple determination (R), determination coefficient (R Square), and adjusted determination coefficient (Adjusted R Square). Based on the table of Model Summaryb, the value of the coefficient of multiple determinations (R) is .520. It shows that the variable of tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 of 2013 have a very strong correlation. The result shows that the value of determination coefficient (R Square) is .270 and the value of adjusted determination coefficient (Adjusted R Square) is .247. It means that 24.7% variations of compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 can be explained by the independent variables (tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits). On the other hand, the rests (100% - 24% = 75.3%) are explained by other variables which does not exist in this research, such as tax regulations, tax administration service, tax sanction, and taxpayer awareness.
T-Test. T-test is used to know the effect of independent variables partially towards the dependent variable, whether it is significant or not. The basic of decision making is using significant probability level:
If the level of significance is < .05, H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted; If the level of the significance is > .05, H0 is accepted and Ha is rejected.
Table 8 - The Result of T-Test
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 14,089 6,629 2,125 ,036
Tax knowledge ,584 ,128 ,446 4,550 ,000
Dimension of justice -,116 ,116 -,106 -,999 ,320
Perception of tax benefits ,250 ,111 ,229 2,250 ,027
a. Predictors: (Constant), tax knowledge, dimension of justice, perception of tax benefits b. Dependent Variable: compliance
Table 9 - Conclusion of Statistical T-Test
- Sig. (T-Test result) Requirement Sig. (<0,05) Conclusion
Tax Knowledge 0,000 < 0,05 Significant
Dimension of Justice 0,320 > 0,05 Not Significant
Perception of Tax Benefits 0,027 < 0,05 Significant
H1: Tax knowledge affects significantly towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. Based on Figure 4.9, the level of significance of the tax knowledge is .000 which is lower than .05 (.000<.05). Therefore, the conclusion based on the first hypothesis testing is that Ha1 is accepted or H01 is rejected. In other words, tax knowledge affects significantly towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
H2: Dimension of justice affects significantly towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. Based on Figure 4.10, the significant of dimension of justice is .320 which is higher than .05 (.320<.05). Therefore, the conclusion based on the second hypothesis testing is that Ha2 is rejected or H02 is accepted. In other words, dimension of justice does not affect significantly towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
H3: Perception of tax benefits affects significantly towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. Based on Figure 4.11, perception of tax benefits has significant value .027 which is lower than .05 (.027<.05). Therefore, the conclusion based on the third hypothesis testing is that Ha3 is accepted or H03 is rejected. In other words, perception of tax benefits affects significantly towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
Simultaneous Significant Testing (F Testing). Simultaneous significant testing F is basically to show whether all independent variables included in the model give impact
simultaneously towards the dependent variable. The reliable degree used is .05. If it is lower than .05, it means that all independent variables simultaneously affect the dependent variable. The Result of Simultaneous Significant Testing (F Testing) can be seen in table 10.
Table 10 - The Result of Simultaneous Significant Testing (F Testing)
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 1660,108 3 553,369 11,852 ,000b
1 Residual 4482,303 96 46,691
Total 6142,411 99
a. Predictors: (Constant), tax knowledge, dimension of justice, perception of tax benefits
b. Dependent Variable: compliance
Based on the result of F testing, the value of F is 11.852 with level of significance .000. It shows that Ha4 is accepted or H04 is rejected because the level of significance is lower than .05; thus it can be concluded that tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits simultaneously and significantly affect the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. From the linear equation of the regression model, it is found that the coefficient of tax knowledge variable (P1) is .584. It shows that every time tax knowledge variable raises 1-point, the compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 will raise 58.4% with other independent variable assumptions remain the same. The amount of dimension of justice variable (P2) is -.116 showing that every time dimension of justice variable raises1-point, the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 will decrease 11.6% with other independent variable assumptions remains the same. On the other hand, if the coefficient of perception of tax benefits variable (P3) is .250, every time perception of tax benefits variable raises 1 point, taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 will raise 25% with other independent variable assumptions remain the same.
Multiple Regression Testing Analysis. The first hypothesis in this study is whether tax knowledge significantly affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. This hypothesis is accepted because the level of significance is .000. If the level of significance is <.05, H01 is rejected and Ha1 is accepted. The rejected H0 means that partially the independent variable significantly affects the dependent variable. Moreover, the coefficient value is .584 showing that tax knowledge variable and taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 have positive correlation. This result is in line with the result of the previous studies conducted by Palil and Ahmad Fariq Mustapha (2011) entitled Factors Affecting Tax Compliance Behavior in Self-Assessment System. The result of the study states that tax knowledge affects positively and significantly to the behavior towards the tax compliance. Tax knowledge variable in this study was measured by taxpayers' knowledge about tax regulations, tax sanctions, self-assessment system, taxpayers' knowledge towards taxpayer registration, the differences between cutting rates tariff, tax calculation which is reported and paid, periodic and annual tax return report, and deferred request. The more taxpayers know about tax regulations relating to general information and sanction the higher awareness that the taxpayers have in paying tax. When taxpayers aware of having Taxpayer Identification Number, it means that they have done the first step of taxpayer compliance; thus, it can affect the national income. Through the mechanism of tax payment, such as payment and report, taxpayers will know what date they should pay the tax. Moreover, when they know about tax knowledge, it will increase the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
The second hypothesis in this study is whether the dimension of justice affects significantly to taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. This hypothesis is rejected because the level of significance is .320. If the level of significance is >.05, H 02 is accepted and Ha2 is rejected. When H0 Is accepted, it means that partially the independent variable does not significantly affect the dependent variable. Besides, the coefficient value is -.116 showing that the dimension of justice variable and
taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 have negative correlation. This result is in line with the study conducted by Syahdan (2014) entitled Dimensi Keadilan atas Pemberlakuan PP No.46 Tahun 2013 dan Peningkatan Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak. The result of the study states that whether the taxation system is fair or not, it does not affect the degree of tax compliance. The degree of tax compliance is more influenced by the strict of applied taxation system than by their perception of the tax fairness. The dimension of justice in this study is measured by general fairness and tax charging system, tax charging, tax collection, and consideration of the element of justice. There are many taxpayers think that 1% of the turnover is high and not fair. It might be simple, but it is difficult for the enterprises because the profit of each year is hardly predicted. Therefore, it can be concluded that the dimension of justice does not affect the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
The third hypothesis is whether the perception of tax benefits significantly affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. This hypothesis is accepted because the level of significance is .027. If the level of significance is <.05, H03 is rejected and Ha3 is accepted. When H0 is rejected, partially the independent variable affects the dependent variable. Moreover, the coefficient is .250 showing that the perception of tax benefits variable and taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 have positive correlation. The result of this study is in line with the study conducted by Reraton (2014) about the effect of perception of regulation, knowledge, and tax benefits towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 in Klewer Solo Market. From the study, it is stated that every benefit which is directly and indirectly accepted can affect the perception of the taxpayers. The perception of tax benefits variable in this study is measured from the tax revenue, the provision of public facilities, tax benefits for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, and the use of the tax itself. The benefits obtained by the taxpayers are subvention, bridge, hospitals, and road constructions which encourage the taxpayers to obey. Therefore, the perception of tax benefits significantly affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
The fourth hypothesis is whether the tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits simultaneously affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. It is found that Fcalculation is 11.852 and the level of significance is .000. It shows that if the three independent variables are tested at the same time, they will significantly affect the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. The more taxpayers know about tax regulations and tax sanction the wider tax knowledge they have. The tax knowledge makes the taxpayers aware of their obligation in paying the tax. However, 1% which is not fair for some parties can decrease their spirit and passion to pay the tax. The tax benefits which are directly or indirectly obtained by them affect the taxpayers' awareness in paying the tax. Finally, based on those explanations, it can be concluded that the three independent variables in this study can affect the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
CONCLUSION
Regarding to the hypothesis testing towards the results of the effect of tax knowledge, dimension of justice and the perception of tax benefits towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 using classical assumption testing and multiple linier regression, it can be concluded that:
Tax knowledge significantly gives positive effect towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. The evidence of this result is proved by the result of t-test with level of significance .000 which is less than .05. p obtained is .584 meaning that the better understanding towards tax knowledge the higher level of taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. This result is in line with the previous hypothesis stating that
tax knowledge significantly affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
Dimension of justice does not give significant effect, but it negatively affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. The evidence of this result can be seen from the result of t-test with level of significance .320 which is higher than .05. ß obtained is -.116 meaning that the higher dimension of justice is the lower the compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. This result does not support the hypothesis stating that the dimension of justice significantly affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
The perception of tax benefits significantly gives positive effects towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013 in LTC Glodok and Puri Indah Market. The evidence of this result can be seen from the result of t-test with level of significance .027 which is less than .05. ß obtained is .250 meaning that the better perception of tax benefits is the higher level of taxpayer compliance is in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. This result is in line with the hypothesis stating that the perception of tax benefits significantly affects the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
Tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits simultaneously give positive and significant effect towards the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013. It can be seen from the result of F-Test with the level of significance .000 which is less than .05. Therefore, it shows that taxpayers having tax knowledge, dimension of justice, and perception of tax benefits affect the taxpayer compliance in implementing Government Regulation No.46 Year 2013.
REFERENCES
1. Berutu, D. A., & Harto, P. (2013). Persepsi Keadilan Pajak terhadap Perilaku Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi (WP OP)(Doctoral dissertation, Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis).
2. Daud, A. (2013). "Hanya 20 juta UKM yang patuh bayar pajak". http://ekbis.sindonews.com/read/755209/33/hanya-20-juta-ukmyangpatuh-bayarpajak-1372416213, diakses pada tanggal 17 September 2015.
3. Ghozali, I. (2013). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program IBM SPSS 21 (edisi ketujuh).Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.
4. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 46 Tahun 2013 tentang Pajak Penghasilan atas Penghasilan dari Usaha yang Diterima atau Diperoleh Wajib Pajak yang Memiliki Peredaran Bruto Tertentu.
5. Probondari, R. (2013). "Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kemauan Membayar Pajak Oleh Wajib Pajak Orang Pribadi yang Terdaftar di Kantor Pelayanan Pajak Pratama Bintan". Hal 1-16.
6. Susmiatun. (2014). "Pengaruh Pengetahuan Perpajakan, Ketegasan Sanksi Perpajakan Dan Keadilan Perpajakan Terhadap Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak UMKM". Jurnal Akuntansi.Vol.3(3), hal 378-386.
7. Tobing, Mona. (2015)."Pemerintah jamin akses modal UMKM". http://keuangan.kontan.co.id/news/pemerintah-jamin-akses-modal-umkm, diakses pada tanggal 6 Oktober 2015
8. Yusro dan Kiswanto. (2014)." Pengaruh Tarif Pajak, Mekanisme Pembayaran Pajak dan Kesadaran Membayar Pajak terhadap Kepatuhan Wajib Pajak UMKM di Kabupen Jepara". Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas Negeri Semarang, Vol.3(44).
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2017-11.11
UNDERSTANDING AND CRITICIZING DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES MODELS
Sugiono Arif*
Business Administration Department, University of Lampung, Indonesia
Hapsari Yudith Dyah
Management Department, University of Katholik Atma Jaya, Indonesia
*E-mail: arifsugiono01 @gmail.com
ABSTRACT
There are at least four researchers who discussed the dynamic capabilities creation model, including Zollo & Winter (2002), Helfat (2007), Teece (2007) and Mc Carthy & Gordon (2010). This paper aims to understand and criticize the models proposed by the four researchers mentioned above. The method used is literature study. Therefore this study can be used as a reference in formulating dynamic capabilities creation model capable of enduring organization environment dynamics. The resulting model understanding and criticism exhibits several important discussion that could be used as guidelines in designing a more comprehensive dynamic creation model.
KEY WORDS
Dynamic Capabilities Models, creation models, organization, management.
A company's success or failure to build a sustainable competitive advantage could be observed from two perspectives through market-based and resource-based view. The market-based view is based on the idea that the company is an open system. As an attempt to defend its existence, the company was required to establish interaction with the environment, to be able to adapt well to the environment dynamics. Interaction and adaptation to the environment must be interpreted as the company's ability to understand the business ecosystem, by making the change as an integral part of strategic management process (Porter, 1981; Davenport et.al, 2006). On the other hand, resource-based view explains the success or failure of a company with differences in companies' resources. Armed with its own resources, a company would use its capability which generally shaped as its operational capability to perform company's daily activities in order to build a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Teece, et.al, 1997; Simon, 2010; Parayitam & Teachers,, 2010; Ahenkora & Aedji, 2012; Tseng & Lee, 2012).
Environments dynamic changes have brought consequences, that the success of the company, is more due to the company's ability to create dynamic capability. It is characterized by the ability to maintain company's capabilities according to the environment dynamics through a systematic and sustainable learning process (Winter, 2003). Dynamic capability is a concept derived from the resource-based view. It is an approach that could explain a company's success in building a competitive advantage in rapidly changing environments. (Esterby et.al, 2009; Ahenkora & Aedji, 2012; Tsheng & Lee, 2012). Instead, failure to create a sustainable competitive advantage, in the midst of rapidly changing dynamic environment and hypercompetitive competition, mostly due to the companies inability to create a competitive strategy based on resources which are not only merely routine but also a dynamic capability to exploit available opportunities. In other words, the company only focused on activities that patterned and repetitive, without innovation. Therefore market forces become weaker (Leonard & Barton, 1992; Winter, 2003).
Understanding Dynamic Capabilities Model Creation Process. Discussion of dynamic capabilities model creation have been conducted by several researchers, including Zollo & Winter (2002), Helfat (2007), Teece (2007) and Mc Carathy & Gordon (2010). Zollo & Winter (2002) developed a dynamic capabilities creation model which derived from learning
