Search results

This study aims to analyze the relationship between a company’s use of aggressive tax planning and several audit committee members’ characteristics, namely, independence, expertise, diligence and gender diversity.

This paper is an empirical research using archival data from 289 Canadian listed companies for the 2011-2015 period.

The authors find that measures of expertise and diligence are significantly related to tax aggressiveness. Financial expertise and tenure on the audit committee play an important role in constraining tax aggressiveness, as does having a larger audit committee.

One limitation – and an area for future research – is that the effects of the audit committee members’ relationships with managers of the firms were not investigated.

Knowledge of audit committee characteristics may send a signal to shareholders, investors and tax agencies regarding the company’s potential risk with respect to aggressive tax planning. The analysis provides useful insights for board governance committees when determining the profile of persons to nominate for board positions and committees. In discussing tax-risk management, the study may heighten audit committee members’ awareness of their role in this respect.

This study’s results indicate that even in a setting where incentives for firms to be tax-aggressive is low compared to high-tax rate countries, there is variability in firms’ tax aggressiveness. This situation allows us to find audit committee characteristics that are effective in decreasing tax aggressiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the significant dividend tax rate reduction for individual investors in Canada in 2006 affected firms’ payout policies.

Using regression models, the authors examine the impact of the 2006 dividend tax cut on dividends and share repurchases in Canadian listed firms from 2003 to 2008. The authors also ran a multinomial logit regression to examine choices between payout policies.

Following the tax cut, firms increased their dividend payouts, with larger increases for firms in which shareholders benefited from the reduced tax rate. However, the 2006 tax cut appears to have had no negative effect on distributions through share repurchases. After the 2006 dividend tax cut, firms owned by shareholders subject to dividend taxes were more likely to use a combination of distribution mechanisms than share repurchases only, dividends only, or no payouts.

Shareholders’ tax preferences are an important factor for firms to consider when designing payout distribution policies. Following the 2006 dividend tax cut, firms increased their dividend payouts.

The findings provide tax regulators with insight into how firms react to tax reform. They suggest that firms adapt their payout policy in the face of: a noteworthy dividend tax cut (6.2 per cent); a dividend tax cut that does not encourage tax arbitrage; and a dividend tax cut that does not economically favour dividend payment over share repurchases.

The paper considers the 2006 dividend tax rate cut in Canada, which presents a number of significant features that allow capturing the effect of a tax cut on payout policies.

The objective of this study is to explain family firm payout decisions based on socioemotional wealth (SEW) considerations.

A sample of publicly listed Canadian companies is examined for the period from 2003 to 2008. Distinguishing family firms from nonfamily firms, a Probit regression is used to analyze the likelihood of making a payout. For payout firms, regressions are used to analyze the relationship between payout level (dividends and share repurchases) and payout mix and family firms.

Results indicate that family firms are more likely to make a payout than nonfamily firms. Among payout firms, the level of payout among payout firms is lower for family firms than for nonfamily firms and their portion of payout in the form of dividends is higher. Lone founder family firms have a lower likelihood of making payouts than other family firms. However, among payout firms, they pay out more than other family firms and have a smaller percentage of their total payout in dividends than other family firms.

Results are impacted by the definition of what constitutes a family firm. Family ownership was used as a proxy for the underlying SEW considerations. Future research could involve interviews with family firm representatives to investigate the relative importance of SEW considerations in their payout decisions.

In providing an alternative theoretical framing of family firms’ payout policies, the study suggests that payout differences between family and nonfamily firms may be driven in part by SEW considerations.