1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Chapter ... - DSpace@UM

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4.1: Respondents’ ProfileItem Frequency %GenderMale 208 53.3Female 182 46.7Total 390 100AgeBelow 20 years 4 <strong>1.0</strong>20 – 29 years 71 18.230 – 39 years 120 30.840 – 59 years 178 45.6Above 60 years 17 4.40Total 390 100EducationSPM 25 6.4STPM 94 24.1Diploma 114 29.2Bachelors 125 32.1Master/Doctorate 32 8.2Total 390 100Employment statusGovernment 107 27.4Private 184 47.2Self Employed/Own Business 56 14.4Others 43 1<strong>1.0</strong>Total 390 1004.2 Perception on Tax Fairness and Tax Compliance – Mean AnalysisThe survey instrument used in this study for tax fairness was replicated from the previousstudy by Richardson (2006) but modified. To find out about the perceptions of theMalaysian taxpayers’ on the tax system and also their tax compliance attitudes, the mean56
analysis was carried out. Firstly, the mean scores results for all item measured under thefive tax fairness dimension is observed to deduce likely outcome from this study i.e. toknow how Malaysians generally perceive the current tax system. Table 4.2 shows themeans and standard deviations for each of the items on the five dimensions of taxfairness. As for the dimension on General Fairness all the 5 items showed scores between3.19 and 3.48 (above mid point). Basically the mean scores of all items on tax fairnessscored 3.00 except two items which scored below 3.00 points which are, one item on selfinterest scored 2.69, and another item on exchange with government scoring 2.92. Byanalyzing the overall mean scores, it can be concluded that the Malaysian taxpayers’perceive the tax system as moderately fair.Secondly, as for the dependent variable tax compliance, mean scores were analyzed todiscover whether these taxpayers’ are compliant or noncompliant. Table 4.3 presents themean and standard deviation of tax compliance.15 items were used to measurehypothetical noncompliance attitudes to evaluate whether taxpayers’ are honest ordishonest in their tax reporting behaviour. The preliminary prediction based on the Likerttype-scale (1 strongly agree through 5 strongly disagree), taxpayers’ who are honestshould record scores higher than dishonest taxpayers’. The results in Table 4.3 weresimilar to the prediction. 14 items recorded mean scores of values within the range of3.02 to 3.29. Only Tcomp 1 scored 2.96. Tcomp 1 was an item on doing business bybarter trading and then not reporting it as income. Thus for the final analysis Tcomp 1was dropped due to the low scores and the same was done by Richardson (2006).57
Page 4:
noncompliance which means not repor
Page 10 and 11: individuals that push for tax fairn
Page 12 and 13: Following from hypothesis H1 - H5,
Page 14 and 15: 1.6 Limitations of the StudyThe fin
Page 16 and 17: CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW2.0 Cha
Page 18 and 19: compliance research and numerous ta
Page 20 and 21: stated crime is an industry where m
Page 22 and 23: 2.2 Definition of Tax FairnessThe l
Page 24 and 25: Distribution in tax fairness refers
Page 26 and 27: elief, and evaluation between pragm
Page 28 and 29: elief that unfairness in the tax sy
Page 30 and 31: elevance of knowing the attitudes o
Page 32 and 33: It has been admitted by many resear
Page 34 and 35: significant results. The reasons gi
Page 36: unfair and also their exchange with
Page 39 and 40: (vertical equity) or in other words
Page 41 and 42: Jackson & Milliron (1986) found tha
Page 43 and 44: differences. Therefore the findings
Page 45 and 46: study education which is a noncompl
Page 47 and 48: CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY3.0 Chapter O
Page 49 and 50: Table 3.1: Reversed Coded Items on
Page 51 and 52: 3.2 Sampling DesignA non probabilit
Page 53 and 54: correlations and multiple regressio
Page 55: the four Federal Territory IRB bran
Page 59 and 60: Table 4.3: Mean and Standard Deviat
Page 61 and 62: factor analysis was considered appr
Page 63 and 64: paid is fair to himself). Based on
Page 65 and 66: dependent variables but having the
Page 68 and 69: 4.5.2 Correlation Matrix 2 between
Page 70 and 71: 4.6.1 H1: There is a positive assoc
Page 72 and 73: The second predictor which was sign
Page 74 and 75: analyzed in Model 3a and 3b to know
Page 76 and 77: Model 3a band 3b was specifically t
Page 78 and 79: CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN
Page 80 and 81: taxes they pay, and may not be payi
Page 82 and 83: in the pay statements and they have
Page 84 and 85: service announcements such as, tele
Page 86 and 87: BIBLIOGRAPHYAllingham, M., & Sandmo
Page 88 and 89: Fallan, L. (1999), “Gender, expos
Page 90 and 91: Mazur, M. .J. & Plumley. A. (2007),
Page 92 and 93: Singh, V. (2003), “Tax Compliance
show all

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Chapter ... - DSpace@UM

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?