Search results

Extant research examining the determinants of deferred tax asset valuation allowances finds that the evidence provisions outlined in SFAS 109 explain a significant portion of both levels of and changes in recorded valuation allowances. In addition, there is evidence of a stock price reaction around the time of announcements of valuation allowance information. The present study extends existing research in two ways. First, extant research on determinants of valuation allowance changes does not incorporate the asymmetry in the evidence provisions of SFAS 109. Accordingly, we separately examine the determinants of increases versus decreases in valuation allowances and find that the evidence provisions of SFAS 109 explain a much greater portion of valuation allowance increases than decreases. Second, we examine the association between annual stock returns and reported earnings resulting from valuation allowance changes. While the earnings effect of valuation allowance changes is found to be significant in the expected direction, the stock price reactions do not occur in the period the earnings effect is reported. This is consistent with low earnings “quality” under SFAS 109.

For taxpayer communications made after July 21 1998 IRC Section 7525 extends a confidentiality privilege to tax advice furnished in non-criminal proceedings by certified public accountants and other federally authorized tax practitioners to the extent such communication would be privileged if it took place between a taxpayer and an attorney. However, subsequent to the enactment of the statute, concerns have been raised about the scope and usefulness of the accountant-client privilege. This article presents an examination of the historical development, statutory provisions, and limitations of IRC Section 7525. It also evaluates, through the use of survey responses, the impact of the privilege on the accounting profession. This study is valuable because it is one of the first to examine the confidentiality privilege by using feedback (via a survey) from the accounting profession.

Our chapter addresses the balance assessment professionals must strike in supporting academic freedom, shared governance practices, and learning improvement efforts within colleges and universities in the United States. Specifically, we address how assessment professionals (faculty or staff whose primary job involves accreditation or the assessment of student learning) can encourage increased educational equity while supporting academic freedom. The authors offer a unique perspective. As former faculty members, current assessment practitioners, and a current academic administrator, we work to ensure that our institutions are using assessments of student learning to improve learning for all students. This work gives us insight into the ways in which assessment information shapes institutional efforts, balancing the rights of faculty to control the curriculum with the rights of historically underserved students (including students from underserved ethnic or racial groups, first generation college students, students from low-income households, and students with special needs or disabilities) to receive a quality education. We propose that one solution to this apparent conflict is to provide faculty with data that allow them to analyze the ways in which their assessment choices influence educational equity. To contextualize our work in this area we summarize institutional and faculty freedoms and discuss areas of conflict. We then describe ways to reduce areas of conflict by creating a culture of inquiry that centers around consideration of data and opportunities to modify assessments to increase educational equity.

This chapter is concerned with examining Pokémon Go in light of the digital economy and surveillance capitalism. The chapter begins by developing the theoretical framework underpinning this undertaking, which includes Bauman and Lyon (2013) ‘liquid surveillance’ and Zuboff's (2019) ‘surveillance capitalism’. Following this, we outline the various implications involved in the playing of Pokémon Go, when the production of locative data is not framed as leisure but labour. While Pokémon Go might be suited to the machinations of surveillance capitalism, as we establish, little research has examined this topic from the position of familial locative play or joint-media engagement. As a corollary to this, then, one of the aims of this chapter is to understand how issues of surveillance are perceived by the parents who play this hybrid reality game (HRG) with their children. Consequently, the chapter is driven by the following research questions. First, are families cognisant of the data they produce by playing this HRG, and how these data might be used? Second, do families think critically about the gamic mechanics of this HRG, such as the spawning locations of Pokémon and the reasoning behind these decisions? Third, are participants concerned about the potential application of their gamic data, and if so, how are these concerns reconciled? Fourth, do participants use the familial playing of Pokémon Go as an opportunity to discuss the production of data and its multifaced uses with their children?

This book provides a deeper understanding of what it means to promote social justice and equity work in schools and communities around the world. Throughout this book, narratives describe how authors continue to reshape the agenda for educational reform. They remind us of the significance meaningful relationships play in promoting and sustaining reform efforts that address the injustices vulnerable populations face in school communities. Their voices represent the need for engaging with obstacles and barriers and a resistant world through a web of relationships, an intersubjective reality (see Ayers, 1996). As authors engaged in thinking about addressing injustices, they describe how their thoughts transformed into actions moving beyond, breaking through institutional structures, attempting to rebuild and make sense of their own situations (see Dewey, 1938).