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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4.4: Mean Score for each Dimension of Tax Fairness and Mean Score of TaxCompliance (N = 390)TComp TGenF TSelf Ttrate TSpec TExchMean 44.71 16.67 8.92 10.58 10.19 9.19Std deviation 10.21 3.81 2.20 2.02 2.09 2.09Skewness -0.102 -0.123 0.200 -0.153 -0.330 -0.247Kurtosis 0.321 -.093 .155 0.469 .631 1.185Min 14 5 3 3 3 3Max 70 25 15 15 15 15Note: GenF= general fairness, Self =self interest, Spec= special provision forhigh income earners, Trate = tax rate, Exch = exchange with the government,TComp= tax compliance4.3 Factor AnalysisFactor analysis is a statistical method to reduce a large set of related variables intosmaller set of components or dimensions. Before factor analysis can be conducted,sufficient sample size should be ensured. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggest suitabilityof data and approach must be determined before factor analysis is conducted.4.3.1 Factor Analysis for Dimensions of Tax FairnessPrincipal component method was used and components extracted by way of varimaxrotation. Inspection of the correlation matrix coefficients was greater than 0.30, thus60
factor analysis was considered appropriate according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).Next, criteria, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be significant and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is between the ranges of 0 to 1, with 0.6 as the minimum level. The resultsof the Barlett’s test were significant with chi square =1879.60, KMO was 0.762 above therecommended value of 0.6 meaning that factor analysis was appropriate for the data.Inspection of the scree plot showed the break clearly happened after three factors. Therotated factors also showed only 3 factors. Therefore these three factors were maintainedfor further analysis.Table 4.5 reports the factor analysis output. Factor one, two and three with eigenvalue ≥ 1explains 21.783%, 13.796% and 10.431% respectively. In total the three factors explain46.01% of the variance. Factor one has seven statements comprising of two dimensions.Factor two also has two dimensions comprising of six statements. Factor three has threestatements. The factor analysis results revealed that the same tax fairness dimension thatexisted in the other jurisdiction like US, UK, Australia and Hong Kong cannot be appliedin the Malaysia context as a single isolated dimension. This study has provided a newexplanation. Factor one which has two dimensions; general fairness and distribution oftax burden plus exchange with government consist of statements or responses that refer tofairness of the tax system. As for Factor two which groups two dimensions; specialprivileges for the wealthy and tax rate contains all statements or responses which disagreethat the tax is fair (the system is unfair). The only exception was self interest which wasfound to remain isolated like in other studies.61
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 and 56: the four Federal Territory IRB bran
Page 57 and 58: analysis was carried out. Firstly,
Page 59: Table 4.3: Mean and Standard Deviat
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?