The purpose of this work is to analyse both from a theoretical and an empirical point of view the reversal of positive and negative temporary differences in Spanish firms and, derived from the reversal, to question whether the comprehensive allocation or the partial allocation of temporary differences is more or less profitable for firms.
The audited annual accounts of the firms registered in the Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores – the Spanish version of the SEC – during the periods 1996, 1997 and 1998 were analysed. To analyse the differences obtained, the sample was first disaggregated into different groups, according to whether the differences were positive or negative temporary reversed. A calculation was made of some descriptive statistics together with an analysis of both the mean and the variance, which made it possible to draw robust conclusions on the way Spanish firms report their positive and negative temporary differences reversed.
The paper provides information about the positive and negative temporary differences reversals by year (1996, 1997 and 1998) and by sector of activities (energy and water, construction, transport and communications, real estate and others) in the sample period and compares them over time.
The highest percentage corresponds to “other negative and positive temporary differences reversals” including those cases where firms do not specify which type of operation has motivated the difference and use the comprehensive allocation of temporary differences; it is very difficult to follow up all the future reversals.
A very useful source of information for Spanish firms and for investigators in this subject.
This paper is pioneering in the analysis of the reversal of temporary differences in Spanish firms, as well as in determining whether the use of the comprehensive or partial tax allocation of temporary differences is more or less appropriate.
Gallego, I. (2005), "The application of the interperiod tax allocation method in the Spanish firms: Analysis of reversed temporary differences", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 145-170. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900510574566Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2005, Emerald Group Publishing Limited