INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2107
www.rsisinternational.org
Doctrinal Legal Research Methodology in Corporate Tax Governance
Studies: Strengths, Critiques, and Balanced Reflections
Nadia Omar
1
*, Nurazlina Abdul Raof
2
, Rozita Othman
3
, Suria Fadhilah Md Pauzi
4
,
1 2 3 4
PhD Candidate, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia,
4
Faculty of Law, University Technology MARA Pahang, Malaysia
* Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000176
Received: 30 September 2025 2025; Accepted: 06 October 2025; Published: 06 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Doctrinal legal research remains the principal methodology in legal scholarship, particularly for studies
exploring corporate tax governance frameworks. This conceptual article rigorously investigates the doctrinal
methodology's foundational role in analyzing complex tax regulatory systems and legal compliance mechanisms
within corporate contexts. Utilizing a systematic doctrinal framework, the study deploys primary legal sources,
including statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions, alongside authoritative secondary materials to examine
corporate tax governance structures. This approach demonstrates methodological effectiveness across diverse
corporate tax governance domains, revealing strengths in regulatory analysis, compliance framework evaluation,
and enforcement mechanism assessment. The methodology provides comprehensive analytical tools for
examining various governance instruments, including corporate liability frameworks, stakeholder protection
mechanisms, and regulatory accountability structures. The doctrinal research process comprises precise problem
identification, extensive legal materials collection, critical evaluation, analytical synthesis, and normative
conclusion drawing. While addressing critiques of doctrinalism’s normative orientation and isolation from
empirical methods, the study argues for doctrinal research’s essential role in generating rigorous legal analysis
and guiding doctrinal innovation. This research thereby reaffirms doctrinal legal methodology’s primacy in legal
scholarship and its capacity to yield robust, normative clarity in the study of law.
Keywords: Doctrinal Legal Research Methodology; Corporate Tax Governance; Tax Compliance Framework;
Legal Research Methods; Tax Regulatory Analysis; Normative Legal Analysis; Malaysia
INTRODUCTION
Corporate tax governance has emerged as a critical area of legal scholarship. This field requires sophisticated
methodological approaches to address complex regulatory frameworks, compliance obligations, and
enforcement mechanisms (Avi-Yonah, 2024; Akinsola, 2025). Corporate tax law encompasses statutory
provisions, judicial interpretations, and regulatory guidelines. These elements require rigorous analytical
methodologies capable of synthesizing diverse legal sources into coherent normative frameworks. Doctrinal
legal research provides essential tools for explaining legal doctrines, analyzing statutory provisions, and
developing normative conclusions within corporate tax governance contexts (Majeed, 2023; Vranken, 2010).
Corporate tax law encompasses statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and regulatory guidelines. These
elements require rigorous analytical methodologies capable of synthesizing diverse legal sources into coherent
normative frameworks. Doctrinal legal research provides essential tools for explaining legal doctrines, analyzing
statutory provisions, and developing normative conclusions within corporate tax governance contexts (Majeed,
2023; Vranken, 2010).
The significance of methodological clarity in corporate tax governance research cannot be overstated,
particularly given the evolving nature of tax regulatory frameworks responding to globalization challenges,
digital economy developments, and international coordination initiatives such as the OECD Base Erosion and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2108
www.rsisinternational.org
Profit Shifting (BEPS) framework. Contemporary corporate tax governance encompasses multifaceted legal
issues, including beneficial ownership transparency requirements, transfer pricing regulations, controlled foreign
company rules, and anti-avoidance provisions that demand systematic doctrinal analysis to ensure normative
coherence and practical applicability.
The study encompasses methodological applications across diverse corporate tax governance domains,
demonstrating the framework's analytical versatility and practical utility. Through examination of various
regulatory contexts, this research illustrates how doctrinal methodology can be effectively applied to analyze
complex legal structures, corporate accountability mechanisms, and regulatory compliance frameworks within
the corporate tax environment.
These analytical applications demonstrate doctrinal methodology's adaptability across multiple corporate tax
governance areas while maintaining methodological consistency and scholarly rigor.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Doctrinal Legal Research Foundations
Doctrinal legal research methodology has been extensively analyzed in contemporary legal scholarship. Scholars
emphasize its fundamental role in discovering, analyzing, and synthesizing legal principles from authoritative
sources (Majeed, 2023; Chynoweth, 2017). This methodology employs a systematic approach to legal analysis.
It requires thorough exploration of primary sources such as statutes, case law, and regulations. This is further
enhanced by referring to authoritative secondary materials, including legal commentaries, treatises, and scholarly
articles. Such a rigorous approach allows legal researchers to develop coherent normative frameworks that are
crucial for navigating complex legal areas like corporate tax governance.
Legal Certainty And Predictability
Recent academic discussions emphasise the important role of doctrinal research in offering legal certainty and
predictability. This is achieved through careful textual analysis and the synthesis of jurisprudential principles
(Vranken, 2010). By focusing on authoritative legal sources, this methodology ensures that its normative
conclusions are grounded in established legal principles. This approach maintains consistency with existing legal
frameworks while highlighting aspects that may need clarification or reform. These qualities make doctrinal
research especially beneficial in corporate tax governance, where regulatory complexity and frequent legislative
changes necessitate systematic analytical approaches.
Corporate Tax Governance Legal Frameworks
Corporate tax governance plays a pivotal role in the legal landscape. It consists of frameworks that establish tax
compliance obligations for corporate entities. These frameworks dictate governance structures that corporations
must implement and define their regulatory interactions with tax authorities (Jallai, 2020; Siglé, 2022). Recent
academic inquiries have increasingly focused on the nuanced relationship between foundational principles of
corporate governance and the diverse demands of tax compliance. This exploration highlights how legal
frameworks shape corporate practices in areas such as tax planning, disclosure requirements, and compliance
strategies. Given the inherent complexity of these regulatory landscapes, there is a pressing necessity for
sophisticated analytical methodologies. Such methodologies can integrate various regulatory instruments,
providing clear and coherent operational guidance that assists corporations in navigating tax governance
complexity effectively.
Scholarly analysis of corporate tax governance has increasingly focused on the legitimacy of corporate tax
planning activities. This analysis distinguishes between acceptable tax optimization and aggressive tax
avoidance schemes that undermine regulatory objectives (Wahab & Holland, 2012; Minnick & Noga, 2010).
Such analysis requires doctrinal examination of statutory provisions, judicial interpretations, and regulatory
guidance to establish normative boundaries for acceptable corporate tax behavior. The methodology’s capacity
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2109
www.rsisinternational.org
for precise legal analysis enables scholars to develop nuanced understandings of regulatory requirements and
compliance obligations within complex corporate tax governance frameworks.
Critiques Of Doctrinal Methodology
Despite its foundational role in legal scholarship, doctrinal research methodology is subject to considerable
criticism concerning its inherent methodological constraints and practical applicability. Critics argue that
doctrinal research’s emphasis on textual analysis and normative reasoning may disconnect legal scholarship from
empirical realities and broader socioeconomic contexts that significantly influence legal efficacy (Bassey, 2022).
These critiques suggest that exclusive reliance on doctrinal methodology may produce legally sound but
practically ineffective normative conclusions. This concern is particularly relevant in dynamic fields such as
corporate tax governance, where regulatory effectiveness depends on complex behavioral and economic factors.
Additional critiques focus on doctrinal methodology’s potential for analytical subjectivity and lack of
methodological transparency in source selection and interpretative processes (Duhoon, 2023). These concerns
highlight the need for enhanced methodological rigour and explicit analytical frameworks that enable scholarly
critique and the verification of doctrinal conclusions. Contemporary scholarship increasingly advocates for
methodological approaches that preserve doctrinal research's normative strengths while integrating
complementary approaches to enhance analytical comprehensiveness and practical relevance.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Doctrinal Research Methodology Components
Doctrinal legal research methodology is characterized by its systematic analytical processes. These processes
extract, analyze, and synthesize established legal principles from authoritative legal sources. The methodology
builds on legal positivism, which treats authoritative texts as primary sources of legal knowledge. It combines
this approach with interpretative techniques that enable coherent understanding of complex legal frameworks
(Majeed, 2023). Within corporate tax governance contexts, doctrinal methodology facilitates a comprehensive
analysis of statutory provisions, regulatory instruments, and judicial decisions that collectively define corporate
tax obligations and compliance requirements.
The methodology’s systematic approach involves sequential analytical stages:
1. Problem Identification: Defining precise research questions based on gaps or ambiguities in current tax
governance frameworks.
2. Source Collection: Gathering primary sources (statutes, regulations, case law) and secondary materials
(commentaries, treatises).
3. Textual Analysis: Applying statutory interpretation canons (ejusdem generis; expressio unius est
exclusio alterius) to discern legislative intent.
4. Jurisprudential Synthesis: Extracting ratio decidendi from judicial rulings and distinguishing it from
obiter dicta to establish binding principles.
5. Normative Conclusion Formulation: Deriving coherent legal doctrines and policy recommendations
anchored in authoritative sources.
6. This structured process ensures methodological rigor and transparency, enabling replication and scholarly
critique (Vranken, 2010).
Application To Corporate Tax Governance
Corporate tax governance provides an ideal domain for demonstrating doctrinal methodology’s analytical
capabilities. The area relies on complex statutory frameworks, extensive regulatory guidance, and evolving
judicial interpretations. For example:
• Beneficial Ownership Transparency: Doctrinal analysis of the Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 and
regulations reveals precise disclosure obligations and enforcement pathways. This analysis clarifies
corporate reporting requirements and identifies compliance procedures.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2110
www.rsisinternational.org
• Tax Compliance Obligations: Examination of Income Tax Act 1967 provisions and Inland Revenue Board
guidelines clarifies corporate reporting duties and penalty structures. This review helps corporations
understand their legal obligations and potential consequences for noncompliance.
• Enforcement Mechanisms: Analysis of prosecution records and judicial precedents identifies procedural
safeguards and evidential thresholds required for successful tax enforcement. This examination provides
guidance for both regulators and taxpayers.
Additional examples, such as director liability frameworks, shareholder derivative actions, and whistleblower
protection statutes, demonstrate doctrinal methodology’s versatility without detracting from its primary focus on
tax governance structures.
Developing Actionable Methodological Integration
The critique of doctrinal methodology's empirical isolation requires concrete approaches that bridge theoretical
legal analysis with practical validation while maintaining scholarly rigor. Contemporary scholarship increasingly
recognizes that "empirical contributions are essential to an accurate understanding of the law" while preserving
doctrinal integrity (Theil, 2025). This recognition necessitates the development of systematic integration
frameworks that enhance doctrinal research's practical relevance without compromising its normative
foundations.
The determination of when to integrate methodological approaches depends on the nature of research questions
and objectives. Pure doctrinal approaches remain appropriate for statutory interpretation, legal consistency
analysis, and normative framework development (Vranken, 2010). However, integration becomes necessary
when examining law's practical effectiveness, compliance patterns, or implementation challenges that shape
corporate behavior (Scarpa, 2023). Mixed methods approaches prove essential when investigating gaps between
legal provisions and real-world corporate practices, particularly in dynamic regulatory context (Blackham,
2022)..
Validation of integrated research requires multiple mechanisms that ensure both components meet appropriate
scholarly standards. Expert review by both doctrinal and empirical specialists provides comprehensive
evaluation of methodological rigor (Theil, 2025). Triangulation using multiple data sources enhances the
reliability and validity of research findings by confirming results through different approaches. Peer validation
through academic and practitioner feedback ensures that research addresses relevant concerns and provides
practical value to both scholarly and professional communities.
This integrated approach addresses doctrinal methodology's limitations while preserving its normative strengths,
ensuring that research remains both theoretically sound and practically relevant for corporate tax governance
studies. By developing systematic frameworks for methodological integration, scholars can enhance the practical
utility of doctrinal research without compromising the analytical rigor and normative clarity that define its
essential contributions to legal scholarship.
Critiques Of Doctrinal Research
METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
Doctrinal legal research methodology faces significant critiques regarding its analytical scope and constraints.
Primary concerns focus on the method’s emphasis on textual analysis and normative reasoning, which can detach
legal scholarship from empirical realities and enforcement contexts (Bassey, 2022). This formalistic approach
risks producing doctrinal conclusions that, while legally sound, may lack practical efficacy in dynamic fields
like corporate tax governance, where socio-economic factors and stakeholder behaviors critically influence
compliance outcomes.
Further, the methodology’s reliance on authoritative texts introduces selectivity bias in source selection.
Doctrinal research may overlook emergent legal phenomena such as industry standards or informal compliance
practices that lack formal codification but significantly affect corporate tax governance (Duhoon, 2023). This
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2111
www.rsisinternational.org
textual determinism restricts scholars’ ability to capture the living law shaped by regulatory guidance,
administrative rulings, and practitioner norms.
Analytical subjectivity presents another challenge. The absence of standardized analytical protocols for statutory
interpretation and case-law synthesis can lead to researcher bias. Variations in identifying ratio decidendi,
classifying obiter dicta, or applying interpretation canons (e.g., noscitur a sociis, ejusdem generis) undermine
replicability and scholarly objectivity (Armstrong et al., 2015).
Practical Application Challenges
Applying doctrinal methodology to rapidly evolving regulatory regimes can create analytical lags. In corporate
tax governance, legislative amendments and international initiatives such as OECD Base Erosion and Profit
Shifting actions often outpace doctrinal analyses, limiting the method’s capacity to address emergent regulatory
trends promptly (Scarpa, 2023). Consequently, scholars may produce normative analyses that fail to account for
recent regulatory innovations, undermining practical relevance.
In addition, doctrinal research’s traditional isolation from interdisciplinary insights reduces its analytical
comprehensiveness. Corporate tax governance research increasingly requires integration with economic analysis
(e.g., incentive effects on tax planning), behavioral studies (e.g., taxpayer compliance motivations), and
institutional approaches (e.g., administrative capacity limitations). By neglecting these dimensions, doctrinal
research may offer an incomplete picture of regulatory effectiveness and corporate behavior.
Balanced Reflections
Methodological Strengths and Continuing Relevance
Despite its critiques, doctrinal legal research remains indispensable for providing normative clarity and analytical
rigor in complex regulatory domains. Its systematic reliance on authoritative legal texts ensures that conclusions
are firmly grounded in statutes, regulations, and binding precedents. This approach preserves legal certainty and
predictability (Vranken, 2010). In corporate tax governance, this methodology excels at mapping intricate
frameworks into coherent doctrinal structures. It effectively addresses areas such as beneficial ownership
transparency obligations and anti-avoidance provisions. This systematic approach enables precise identification
of regulatory gaps and interpretative inconsistencies.
Doctrinal research’s capacity to distil ratio decidendi and apply established interpretative canons provides
practitioners and policymakers with reliable legal guidance. This guidance supports effective law reform and
judicial decision-making (Armstrong et al., 2015). Its focus on the hierarchy of legal norms preserves doctrinal
purity, ensuring that normative conclusions remain tethered to the rule of law.
Integration And Enhancement Approaches
To address doctrinal methodology’s empirical and interdisciplinary gaps, contemporary scholarship advocates
methodological integration that retains normative precision while incorporating complementary methods:
1. Comparative Doctrinal Analysis: Systematic cross-jurisdictional examination of analogous tax
governance regimes yields best practice insights. For example, comparing Australia's beneficial
ownership requirements with Malaysian provisions highlights implementation challenges and potential
improvements (Tang, 2019).
2. Empirical Validation: Limited case study methodologies and enforcement outcome analyses test doctrinal
conclusions against real-world compliance behaviors. This approach measures regulatory effectiveness
metrics, enhancing practical relevance without diluting normative foundations (Scarpa, 2023).
3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Integrating economic analysis (e.g., incentive structures influencing tax
planning), behavioral studies (e.g., taxpayer compliance motivations), and institutional assessments (e.g.,
administrative capacity constraints) enriches doctrinal insights and informs holistic policy design (Bassey,
2022).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2112
www.rsisinternational.org
Transparency And Scholarly Accountability
Enhancing doctrinal research's transparency involves explicit source selection criteria, detailed analytical
frameworks, and rigorous peer review processes. Documenting each stage from problem identification to
normative conclusion drawing ensures replicability and enables scholarly critique. This documentation process
bolsters the methodology’s academic credibility (Duhoon, 2023).
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Normative Foundations and Doctrinal Supremacy in Corporate Tax Jurisprudence
Doctrinal legal research demonstrates clear importance in explaining the normative architecture underlying
corporate tax governance frameworks. Its systematic interpretative methodology enables comprehensive
statutory construction and judicial precedent analysis. These capabilities are essential for defining corporate
entities' tax compliance obligations (Majeed, 2023; Richardson & Taylor, 2015).
Systematic Legal Analysis
Through rigorous textual analysis and jurisprudential synthesis, doctrinal research establishes coherent
interpretative frameworks that serve as foundational structures for understanding complex corporate tax
governance systems. This systematic approach enables researchers to deconstruct intricate regulatory landscapes
into manageable analytical components while maintaining awareness of their interconnected nature. The
methodology's strength lies in its capacity to synthesize diverse legal sources, statutory provisions, judicial
precedents, and regulatory guidance into unified doctrinal frameworks that provide a comprehensive
understanding of legal obligations and enforcement mechanisms.
The coherence achieved through systematic doctrinal analysis extends beyond mere organizational clarity to
encompass substantive legal understanding that informs both scholarly inquiry and practical application. By
establishing clear analytical frameworks, doctrinal research enables practitioners and policymakers to navigate
complex regulatory requirements with greater certainty and precision. This systematic approach also facilitates
comparative analysis across different regulatory domains, revealing underlying principles that unify seemingly
disparate areas of corporate tax governance and highlighting potential inconsistencies that may require
legislative or judicial clarification.
Resolving Legal Conflicts
The capacity to perform comparative analysis of competing legal doctrines facilitates resolution of normative
conflicts inherent in tax statutes. For example, harmonizing beneficial ownership disclosure mandates with
corporate confidentiality principles demands careful doctrinal balancing. This balance is achieved by extracting
ratio decidendi from leading cases (AviYonah, 2024).
Statutory Interpretation Excellence
Furthermore, doctrinal methodology excels in statutory interpretation. It applies established interpretation rules,
ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and noscitur a sociis to clarify ambiguous tax provisions
(Majeed, 2023). Its positivist orientation ensures normative conclusions derive from the hierarchy of legal norms,
preserving stare decisis and the rule of law.
Jurisprudential Limitations And Methodological Constraints
Despite its normative strengths, doctrinal legal research faces significant epistemological constraints. Critics
argue that its formalistic focus on textual sources may detach analysis from enforcement realities and socio-
economic contexts. This detachment limits practical effectiveness in curbing tax avoidance and regulatory
arbitrage (Bassey, 2022; Hanlon & Heitzman, 2010).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2113
www.rsisinternational.org
Sources Selection Challenges
Selectivity bias in source selection poses another challenge. Doctrinal researchers may overlook living law,
including industry guidelines, administrative rulings, and informal practices that shape compliance behavior but
lacks formal codification (Duhoon, 2023). This textual focus restricts doctrinalism’s ability to capture dynamic
regulatory phenomena.
Interpretative Subjectivity
Interpretative subjectivity further undermines replicability and objectivity. Variability in identifying ratio
decidendi, distinguishing obiter dicta, and applying interpretative canons compromises scholarly rigor
(Armstrong et al., 2015).
Methodological Synthesis And Integrative Approaches
To mitigate these limitations, scholars advocate a methodological approach. Comparative doctrinal analysis
enables cross-jurisdictional norm comparison and best-practice identification, as seen in contrasting OECD
BEPS-guided frameworks across countries (Tang, 2019).
Empirical Enhancement
Empirical validation through case study methodologies tests doctrinal conclusions against compliance metrics,
enhancing practical relevance (Scarpa, 2023). Interdisciplinary collaboration with economic, behavioral, and
institutional analyses enriches doctrinal insights, informing holistic policy design (Bassey, 2022).
Enhanced Transparency
Transparency protocols including explicit source criteria, detailed analytical frameworks, and rigorous peer
review strengthen scholarly accountability and replicability (Duhoon, 2023).
Policy Implications And Regulatory Applications
Doctrinal research provides indispensable normative foundations for legislative drafting, regulatory policy
formulation, and adjudicative guidance within corporate tax governance. By systematically identifying gaps and
inconsistencies in legal frameworks, doctrinal analysis informs targeted law reform that addresses specific
shortcomings in the statutory and regulatory regime. For example, clarifying ambiguities in beneficial ownership
disclosure statutes through detailed interpretative work can guide policymakers in tightening reporting
requirements and closing loopholes that facilitate tax avoidance. Similarly, examining anti-avoidance provisions
within a coherent doctrinal framework enables regulators to refine enforcement protocols and establish clear
evidentiary standards for successful prosecution of corporate tax misconduct.
Moreover, doctrinal scholarship aids regulatory agencies in developing practical compliance guidelines. Through
meticulous examination of statutory duties and judicial precedents, researchers can distill key principles that
inform enforcement manuals and compliance checklists. This process ensures that regulatory guidance remains
firmly rooted in legal authority while being accessible to practitioners and corporate officers tasked with
implementing governance measures. Adjudicative bodies also benefit from doctrinal frameworks, as judges rely
on coherent interpretative structures to resolve disputes involving complex tax issues. By articulating clear
doctrinal principles, researchers contribute to the consistency and predictability of judicial decisions, which in
turn strengthens the overall integrity of the corporate tax system.
Malaysian Context Application
In Malaysian contexts, doctrinal analysis of recent beneficial ownership amendments and antiavoidance rules
provides regulators with precise normative templates. These templates support compliance guidelines,
enforcement strategies, and sanctions frameworks (Jallai, 2020; Siglé, 2022).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2114
www.rsisinternational.org
Future Directions And Methodological Evolution
Emerging challenges, such as digital taxation, blockchain-based transactions, and AI-driven corporate structures,
necessitate doctrinal methodological adaptation and interpretative innovation (Bal, 2021). Integration of digital
research tools enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration, and ASEAN-focused comparative studies will ensure
doctrinal research’s continued relevance and efficacy in evolving corporate tax governance landscapes.
CONCLUSION
This conceptual analysis affirms that doctrinal legal research methodology remains the cornerstone of corporate
tax governance scholarship. It provides indispensable tools for systematic legal analysis, normative clarity, and
coherent synthesis of complex tax regulatory frameworks.
Core Strengths
Doctrinal research excels at deriving clear compliance obligations and enforcement principles directly from
statutes, judicial decisions, and regulations. Its systematic interpretative methods produce normative guidance
grounded in authoritative legal sources. By organizing complex tax rules into coherent doctrinal frameworks,
this approach delivers the legal certainty and clarity essential for effective governance and policymaking.
Addressing Limitations
While critics highlight methodological limitations such as limited empirical engagement, selectivity bias, and
interpretative subjectivity, this study demonstrates that balanced integration can mitigate these challenges.
Approaches such as comparative analysis, empirical validation, and interdisciplinary insights address these
concerns without compromising doctrinal integrity. Enhanced transparency protocols further strengthen
scholarly accountability and replicability.
Practical Applications
Doctrinal methodology offers versatile tools for translating normative analysis into actionable policy and
practice. By elucidating the legal foundations underpinning corporate tax obligations, it informs regulatory
guidelines and enforcement strategies in a clear, consistent manner. Practitioners gain precise frameworks for
compliance decision-making, while policymakers benefit from doctrinal insights when drafting legislation or
refining regulations. This ensures that governance measures rest on solid legal authority and remain adaptable
to evolving corporate environments.
Future Adaptation
Looking forward, doctrinal research must adapt to emerging digital taxation challenges, global regulatory
coordination imperatives, and technological innovations such as blockchain and AI. Interdisciplinary
collaboration and advanced analytical tools will be critical for maintaining doctrinal methodology’s relevance
and effectiveness.
Ultimately, reaffirming doctrinal legal research’s role in corporate tax governance supports the development of
coherent, enforceable legal norms. These norms promote transparency, accountability, and compliance in
complex corporate tax environments.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authors Express Gratitude to the Faculty of Law, University Technology Mara, Shah Alam, for the Support
that Enabled the Completion of this Article. .
REFERENCES
1. Akinsola, K. (2025). Legal Issues in Corporate Taxation and Governance: Navigating the
Complexities of Tax Compliance and International Tax Strategies. SSRN Electronic Journal.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 2115
www.rsisinternational.org
2. Armstrong, C. S., Blouin, J. L., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2015). Corporate governance,
incentives, and tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 1–17.
3. Avi‐Yonah, R. S. (2024). Taxation and corporate governance. SSRN Electronic Journal.
4. Bal, A. (2021). Taxation of virtual currencies in the European Union. European Taxation, 61(2/3), 67–
79.
5. Bassey, E. (2022). A conceptual framework for digital tax administration. Government Information
Quarterly, 39(4), 101742.
6. Blackham, A. (2022). When law and data collide: The methodological challenge of conducting mixed
methods research in law. Journal of Law and Society, 49(3), 373–401.
7. Chynoweth, P. (2017). Legal research. In Legal Research Methods (pp. 1–24). Salford University
Press.
8. Davies, M. (2020). Legal realism and legal doctrine. European Law Review, 45(2), 187– 203.
9. Duhoon, A. (2023). Corporate tax avoidance: A systematic literature review and future research
agenda. Lodging Business Research, 21(2), 197–218.
10. Hanlon, M., & Heitzman, S. (2010). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics,
50(2–3), 127–178.
11. Jallai, A. G. (2020). Good tax governance: International corporate tax planning and corporate social
responsibility. Tilburg University Press.
12. Kovermann, J. (2019). Corporate governance and tax avoidance: A literature review. Journal of
International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 36, 100270.
13. Majeed, N. (2023). Doctrinal research in law: Meaning, scope and methodology. BBE Journal, 9(2),
123–139.
14. Malaysian Tax Corporate Governance Framework. (2025). IRBM Guidelines. Inland Revenue Board
of Malaysia.
15. Minnick, K., & Noga, T. (2010). Do corporate governance characteristics influence tax management?
Journal of Corporate Finance, 16(5), 703–718.
16. Monageng, R. (2023). Using mixed methods to understand tax compliance behaviour. Electronic
Journal of Business Research Methods, 21(3), 45–62.
17. OECD. (2024). Beneficial ownership and tax transparency: Implementation and remaining challenges.
OECD Publishing.
18. Richardson, G., & Taylor, G. (2015). Income shifting incentives and tax haven utilization: Evidence
from multinational U.S. firms. The International Journal of Accounting, 50(4), 458–485.
19. Scarpa, F. (2023). Understanding corporate tax responsibility: A systematic literature review.
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(7), 179–205.
20. Siems, M. (2009). The taxonomy of interdisciplinary legal research: Finding a way out of the
methodological maze. Legal Studies, 29(3), 327–347.
21. Siglé, M. A. (2022). The cooperative approach to corporate tax compliance: An empirical assessment.
The Accounting Review, 97(3), 95–118.
22. Tang, T. Y. H. (2019). The value implications of tax avoidance across countries. Journal of Accounting,
Auditing & Finance, 34(4), 615–638.
23. Theil, S. (2025). Carefully tailored: Doctrinal methods and empirical legal scholarship. Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies, 45(2), 234–256.
24. Vranken, J. B. M. (2010). Methodology of legal doctrinal research. Hart Publishing.
25. Wahab, N. S. A., & Holland, K. (2012). Tax planning, corporate governance and equity value. The
British Accounting Review, 44(2), 111–124.
