Search results

This study aims to examine how corporate taxes affect corporate risk-taking decisions.

This study examines corporate risk-taking by analyzing how a firm’s asset risk changes following an acquisition carried out by publicly listed companies in the G7 nations. To measure the asset risk of a firm, this study uses the option pricing framework in Merton (1974).

Consistent with an implication of the Merton (1974) framework, the findings show that firms take more risk in their investment decisions when tax rates are high. Moreover, the tax effects wane for firms with a relatively large borrowing opportunity and this suggests that the risk-taking incentive from taxes is moderated by the reputation concern in the debt market, lending support to the Diamond (1989) reputation-building model. The empirical results also show that the tax-induced risk-taking incentive is restrained by creditor rights. Overall, the study reveals an important role of taxes in the structure of corporate investment decisions.

The implications of this study can be beneficial to policymakers when considering the alteration of tax rates, as it will affect the riskiness of firm investment decisions.

This study provides a better understanding of the role of taxes on risk-taking and also contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting tax effects of risk-taking. The relationship between taxes and risk-taking has proven that the corporate taxation is one of the key factors that firms consider during their selection of risky investments. Unlike previous studies, this research is the first to investigate the change in asset risk, estimating by the option pricing framework, through studying a particular event: mergers and acquisitions.

The existing literature documents mixed evidence toward the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate tax planning (e.g., Davis, Guenther, Krull, & Williams, 2016; Hoi, Wu, & Zhang, 2013). In this study, I aim to identify a causal relationship between CSR and tax planning, leveraging the staggered adoptions of constituency statutes in US states, which is a plausibly exogenous shock to firms' emphasis on their social responsibility. In general, the statutes permit firm directors to consider the interests of all constituents when making business decisions, including those who benefit from firms paying their fair share of income taxes. Thus, the adoption of the statutes raises the importance of firms' social responsibility in paying income taxes. Employing a staggered difference-in-differences (DiD) method, I find that firms incorporated in states that have adopted constituency statutes exhibit significantly higher effective tax rates (ETRs) based on current tax expense. This causal relationship suggests that managers, with the legitimacy to consider the social impact of tax avoidance, become less aggressive in tax planning. I further find that the effect of adoption is stronger for financially unconstrained firms and firms in retail businesses, where the demand (cost) for tax avoidance is lower (higher). Finally, I show that my main results are driven by firms located in states with a high sense of social responsibility and firms with high levels of tax avoidance prior to the adoption. Overall, the findings in this chapter contribute to the literature by delineating a negative causal relationship between CSR and tax avoidance and identifying a positive social impact brought by the passage of constituency legislation.

We examine whether variations in the most fundamental aspects of state corporate income tax regimes affect state economic activity as measured by personal income, gross state product, and total non-farm employment. We focus on a variety of statutory components of state corporate income taxes that apply broadly in most U.S. states and for most multi-state corporate taxpayers. Our econometric strategy consists of a series of fixed effects panel regressions using state-level data from 1996 through 2010. Our results reveal important interaction effects of tax rates and policies, suggesting that policy makers should avoid making decisions about tax rates in isolation. The results demonstrate a relatively consistent negative economic response to the combination of high tax rates with throwback rules and heavy sales factor weights. Combined reporting has no discernible effect on personal income, GSP, or employment after controlling for tax rates, apportionment, and throwback rules. In an effort to gauge the relative impacts of tax policies on the location of economic activity, we also estimate alternative models in which each state’s economic activity is measured as a share of the national economic activity in each year. Statistically significant effects for tax rates, apportionment formulas, and throwback rules in the shares models suggest that at least some of their impact involves the movement of activity across state lines, thereby leaving open the possibility of a zero-sum game among the states.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the following research questions: Is the Portuguese corporate income tax (CIT) losing its internal consistency by extending the autonomous taxation of expenses (ATE)? Are receipts derived from autonomous taxes so relevant that what began as an exception is gradually becoming a permanent feature of the income tax? Given the constitutional principle that corporate taxation should be fundamentally based on income, is the taxation of expenses unconstitutional? Is Portugal an international outlier, in applying this type of taxation to corporate expenses?

The methodology used in the paper is a blend of legal research method and case study analysis. The interpretation of legal texts and the ratio legis discussion (hermeneutical side), the evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of autonomous taxes (argumentative approach) and the use of aggregate data to gauge an impression of autonomous taxes’ impact on global tax receipts (empirical side) will, jointly, be used to analyse the topic. Autonomous taxation is a case study on how a (albeit distortive) solution is being applied in an European Union (EU) country to significantly enhance corporate-related tax revenue.

The authors conclude that autonomous taxation is a relevant source of revenue and its elimination is not foreseeable, at least in the medium term. Moreover, the extension of the tax base is gradually transforming CIT in a kind of dual tax, by charging profits and some expenses. The Constitutional Court, stressing the equity principle, has not ruled autonomous taxation unconstitutional, invoking usefulness against tax evasion. Finally, with the exception of some Portuguese-speaking countries, no other comparable international experience is observed.

The autonomous taxes (ATE) and its progressive enlargement imply, on the one hand, that the CIT has been slowly, but inexorably, losing its sole purpose of taxing profits, and imposing a tax penalty on an increasing set of accounting expenses. On the other hand, the growing number of expenses subjected to taxation leads some authors to ponder if the Portuguese tax regime is losing attractiveness. By increasing ATE’s scope, the effective rate tends to move upwards, countering reductions in the statutory rate. Finally, tax law will increasingly influence managers’ daily decisions, given the set of expenses targeted by autonomous taxes.

Taking into account the aim of this study, the discussion of a Portuguese particular feature of corporate taxation can highlight useful policy points to a broader audience. Many Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries face a dire situation in public finances. Therefore, given the pressure to increase tax receipts, the ATE can be a case study on how a (albeit distortive) solution is being applied in an EU country to significantly enhance corporate-related tax revenue.

To analyse the net present value (NPV) rule for corporate investments incorporating shareholder personal taxes, under the classical system of taxing corporate profits.

The after‐tax payoffs to shareholders are calculated, comparing immediate distribution as dividends of corporate funds available for investment with future after‐tax dividend distributions if corporate funds are invested.

Shareholders will disagree on the optimal corporate NPV rule. If, as in widely held public companies, corporate management are unaware of the marginal personal tax rate of shareholders, then the only rule which will accept investment projects that no shareholder would want the company to reject, is the rule which discounts after‐corporate‐tax cash flows at a before‐tax discount rate.

The analysis is based on the classical system of taxing corporate profits. A number of countries have adopted an integrated system of corporate taxation. The analysis may or may not extend to such alternative systems.

Simplifies the choice of NPV rules for corporate management, under a classical tax system.

The widely held view that after‐corporate‐tax discount rates should be used in discounting after‐corporate‐tax cash flows is shown to be inadequate.

The purpose of this paper is to show that distinguishing between gross and net tax shields arising from interest deductions is important to firm valuation. The distinction affects the interpretation but not valuation of tax shields for the famous Miller’s (1977) model with corporate and personal taxes. However, for the well-known Miles and Ezzell’s (1985) model, the authors show that the valuation of tax shields can be materially affected. Implications to the cost of equity and optimal capital structure are discussed.

This paper proposed a simple tax shield clarification that distinguishes between gross and net tax shields. Net tax shields equal gross tax shields minus personal taxes on debt. When an after-tax riskless rate is used to discount shareholders’ tax shields, this distinction affects the interpretation but not valuation results of the Miller’s model. However, when the after-tax unlevered equity rate is used to discount tax shields under the well-known Miles and Ezzell’s (1985) model, the difference between gross and net tax shields can materially affect valuation results. According to the traditional ME model, both gross tax shields and debt interest tax payments (i.e. net tax shields) are discounted at the after-tax unlevered equity rate. By contrast, the proposed revised ME model discounts gross tax shields at the unlevered equity rate but personal taxes on debt income at the riskless rate (like debt payments). Because personal taxes on debt are nontrivial, traditional ME valuation results can noticeably differ from the revised ME model to the extent that after-tax unlevered equity and debt rates differ from one another.

For comparative purposes, the authors provide numerical examples of the traditional and revised ME models. The following constant tax rates and market discount rates are assumed: T_c=0.30, T_pb=0.20, T_ps=0.10, r=0.06, and ρ=0.10. Table I compares these two models’ valuation results. Maximum firm value for the traditional ME model is 7.89 compared to 7.00 for the revised ME model. At a 50 percent leverage ratio, equity value is reduced from 3.71 to 3.49, respectively. Importantly, the traditional ME model suggests that firm value linearly increases with leverage and implies an all-debt capital structure, whereas firm value stays relatively constant as leverage increases in the revised ME model. These capital structure differences arise due to discounting debt tax payments with the unlevered equity rate (riskless rate) in the traditional ME (revised ME) model. Figure 1 graphically summarizes these results by comparing the traditional ME model (thin lines) to the revised ME model (bold lines).

Textbook treatments of leverage gains to firms or projects with corporate and personal taxes should be amended to take into account this previously unrecognized tradeoff. Also, empirical analyses of capital structure are recommended on the sensitivity of leverage ratios to the gross-tax-gain/debt-personal taxes tradeoff.

Financial managers need to understand how to value interest tax shields on debt in making capital structure decisions, computing the cost of capital, and valuing the firm.

The valuation of interest tax shields in finance is a long-standing controversy. Nobel prize winners Modigliani and Miller (MM) wrote numerous papers on this subject and gained fame from their ideas in this area. However, application of their ideas has changed over time due to the Miles and Ezzell’s (ME) model of firm valuation. The present paper adapts the pathbreaking ideas of MM to the valuation framework of ME. Students and practitioners in finance can benefit by the valuation results in the paper.

No previous studies have recognized the valuation issues resolved in the paper on the application of the popular and contemporary ME model of firm valuation to the MM valuation concepts. The new arguments in the paper are easy to understand and readily applied to firm valuation.

This study examines the impact of expanded geographical disclosures on nonprofessional investor judgments. Public country-by-country reporting (CBCR) is a way to increase corporate transparency, enhancing tax fairness and accountability (European Commission, 2016). Public disclosure would make large multinational companies share information about profits, taxes paid, and number of employees on a per-country basis. However, it is unclear whether nonprofessional investors would even use CBCR and how they would interpret the information. Adding to the policy debate on whether publicly available country-by-country information will be properly used, this study employs an experimental design to investigate the effect of disclosure availability and content on nonprofessional investor judgments. We find that participants receiving an expanded disclosure are able to more accurately assess the state of the social contract between the organization and society, imposing sanctions if necessary. Exploring CBCR provides timely evidence to regulators, standard setters, and tax fairness campaigners on the impact of expanded geographical disclosures as a means of increasing transparency and improving competitiveness.

It is important to consider economic and political factors when designing the tax mix and setting the level of corporate taxation. Increasing corporate taxation can be seen as an inefficient way to raise revenue for the state, as it can have a negative impact on investment and the competitiveness of firms. However, lowering corporate taxation can encourage investment and job creation, but it can also be perceived as supporting large corporations. The aim of this chapter is to evaluate corporate taxation, its position in the tax mix and its potential impact on economic growth. The revenues of corporate income tax (CIT) have an increasing tendency even though the tax rate was reduced from 41% to 19%. Revenues are influenced by both legislative changes and economic cycles. The level of taxation is also influenced by deductions, which include asset depreciations, research and development expenses, or loss deductions. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to examine the correlation between the selected factors. A moderately strong positive correlation was found between GDP growth and CIT as a percentage of total taxes, as well as between GDP growth and CIT as a percentage of GDP.

The purpose of this paper is to find out the corporate tax gaps in India and the possible reasons behind it.

The objectives were achieved by looking at the existing tax system in the country, problems in the area of corporate taxation and the reasons for these problems. The authors also look at how we can address a few of these problems in comparison with other emerging countries.

Emerging countries play an important role in the world economy. India is undeniably rising as an important and vital country, not only among emerging countries but also in the global economy. Tax environment in India is often seen as a complex system with the multiplicity of indirect taxes, overburdening litigations and lack of certainty. Tax policies can be an effective mechanism to promote investments, both international and domestic, which India needs in abundance. The existing high fiscal deficit in the country necessitates the need to make revenue increase a primary concern of tax policy in India. Although indirect taxes have become an important source of development funds in developing countries due to their wide coverage, we feel that corporate tax can become a potential source of revenue in the future.

This paper should help in changing the way policy decisions relating to tax should be looked at.

Studies in the Indian context are limited. This paper should be of some use to those intending to understand the tax system, especially with reference to corporate taxes in India.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the emerging discourse on corporate taxation from a corporate social responsibility perspective to develop a consensual definition of corporate tax responsibility (CTR) and to identify a set of indicators that firms should publicly communicate to their stakeholders as an accountability mechanism.

Data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with representatives of stakeholders closely related to taxation: tax authorities, companies, NGOs, tax advisors and academics. Based on a discourse analysis approach, data were coded and analyzed using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.

CTR is defined as the set of tax-related practices and policies that allow companies to pay a fair share of taxes as a function of the generated value in each jurisdiction in which they operate and to then publicly disclose them. Disclosure should cover disaggregated quantitative data and information on practices and policies.

Despite the wealth of research on sustainability reporting and increasing public awareness of tax aggressiveness and disclosure, academic research has not explored tax-responsible reporting. Moreover, no consensual definition of CTR has been formulated, and no indicators to properly account for responsible taxation have been identified. This paper contributes to filling these gaps by providing rich interview evidence regarding the nature of the emerging discourse on CTR reporting and a set of material indicators for CTR disclosure. This paper encourages researchers to foster the development of social accountability by engaging in future empirical studies of CTR.