Broadly speaking, taxation is a strategic mechanism designed to support and advance the nation as a whole. Tax revenues are primarily allocated to managing state finances, maintaining economic stability, and supporting regional development programs through a surplus in the State Budget (APBN).

Despite its strategic importance, the existence of taxes often sparks contradictory debate. For many stakeholders—particularly entrepreneurs—taxation is frequently perceived as a detrimental burden that can affect business sustainability.

Companies must meticulously recalibrate selling prices and consumer purchasing power against incurred costs, including applicable tax rates. This pressure drives various firms to implement tax management strategies. This deliberate reconsideration of tax reporting is a phenomenon known as Tax Aggressiveness.

In short, Tax Aggressiveness refers to tax engineering activities that can be conducted either legally (tax avoidance) or illegally (tax evasion). It is important to note that Tax Aggressiveness differs from Financial Aggressiveness; the former focuses specifically on minimizing the tax liability mandated for taxpayers.

Given that the realm of taxation involves highly varied interpretations of strategy, students from the Accounting Study Program at Dian Nusantara University (UNDIRA) conducted a study examining the link between Tax Aggressiveness and management practices within consumer goods companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (BEI) from 2020 to 2024.

In their research, the students utilized Agency Theory as the fundamental framework for discussion. Agency Theory maps the policy implementation patterns between the "Agent" (management) in response to the "Principal" (decision-makers or regulators) based on available information and general regulations.

From the perspective of Tax Aggressiveness, the study found that information regarding corporate profit and loss exerts direct pressure on Agents to maximize aggressive tax planning. However, in practice, Agents must consider several critical variables, including: Capital Intensity, Leverage, and Sales Growth.

These three indicators, which reflect performance and investment in company facilities (asset investment), directly influence the tax value reported in future filings. Capital Intensity helps minimize tax through considerations of asset maintenance and depreciation; Leverage involves the strategic use of debt to fund company performance; and Sales Growth ultimately shapes Tax Aggressiveness policies based on increasing sales figures.

The students conducted their analysis using the Effective Tax Rate (ETR) method—measuring tax expense divided by pre-tax profit. Referencing the study by Chen et al., companies with high Tax Aggressiveness typically exhibit a low ETR. Furthermore, the use of Cash Effective Tax Rate (CETR) contributed to a more detailed analysis of tax expenses based on the taxpayer's cash flow statements.

By analyzing financial and tax report data from 51 consumer goods companies listed on the BEI, the UNDIRA students successfully mapped a pattern: the three indicators—Capital Intensity, Leverage, and Sales Growth—did not provide a significant incentive for these specific companies to engage in Tax Aggressiveness practices.

The findings revealed that major companies studied—such as Ultrajaya Milk Industry, Garudafood, Kalbe Farma, Gudang Garam Tbk., and Unilever—tend to possess concrete management stability, thereby minimizing the necessity for aggressive tax maneuvers. This study by UNDIRA students is expected to serve as a benchmark in tax analysis and a valuable reference for future discussions regarding corporate tax behavior.