MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398255449 · doi:10.5430/afr.v13n2p154

The Influence of Board Attributes towards Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Malaysian Public Listed Companies

2024· article· en· W4398255449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siti Nursyafiqa Syaqireen Azmi, Nadiah Abd Hamid, Ida Suriya Ismail, Mohd Rizal Palil

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Taxation and Avoidance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessTax avoidanceAccountingMarketingPublic economicsFinanceEconomicsDouble taxation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the research is to examine the relationship between board attributes and TA among publicly listed companies. This study utilised a quantitative approach using secondary data from companies listed on the Bursa Malaysia Top 100 Index. The final sample consists of 79 firms. The annual reports from 2018 to 2022 were used for data collection, with 395 firm-year observations. The dependent variable was TA, which was proxied by the effective tax rate, and the independent variables were board size, board independence, board gender diversity, and CEO duality. This study shows a negative and significant relationship between board size and TA. Meanwhile, there is no association between board independence, board gender diversity, and CEO duality, and TA. This research focused on one facet of CG, namely the board attributes, and only four variables are included in this study. Hence, it provides a narrow view of the relationship between CG and TA. Besides that, this research was conducted in the Malaysian context and thus may differ from research conducted in other countries. The outcome of this study could offer useful insights to investors and other stakeholders in their decision-making process. Besides that, regulators can reference this study to strengthen the CG codes to protect stakeholder interests.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicCorporate Taxation and AvoidanceFrench-language works237,207