Toward Innovation in Tax Governance through Institutional Ownership and Moderate Company Size

General Background: Corporate tax aggressiveness represents an important financial management issue associated with ownership structures, liquidity, asset investment, and organizational characteristics. Specific Background: Property and real estate companies exhibit distinctive financial structures that may shape corporate tax planning practices. Knowledge Gap: Previous studies have reported inconsistent relationships between liquidity, institutional ownership, capital intensity, and tax aggressiveness, particularly regarding the moderating role of firm size. Aims: This study examines these relationships among Indonesian property and real estate companies during 2022–2024 using multiple linear regression and moderated regression analysis. The initial sample comprised 27 companies and 81 firm-year observations, with 72 observations retained for the transformed regression analyses. Results: Liquidity (p = 0.144) and capital intensity (p = 0.101) were not statistically significant, whereas institutional ownership was significantly associated with lower tax aggressiveness (p = 0.046). The regression model was jointly significant (F = 11.050; p < 0.001). Firm size significantly moderated the liquidity relationship (p < 0.001), but its interactions with institutional ownership (p = 0.079) and capital intensity (p = 0.089) were nonsignificant. Novelty: The study identifies differentiated moderating relationships across liquidity, ownership concentration, and fixed asset intensity within an integrated corporate taxation framework. Implications: Corporate tax management and governance assessments should account for institutional ownership and organizational scale while interpreting nonsignificant financial indicators cautiously. Highlights: Shareholding concentration showed a statistically significant negative relationship (p = 0.046). The organizational scale interaction was significant only for the cash coverage measure. Fixed asset intensity and two interaction terms were nonsignificant at the 5% threshold.