Search results

This study investigates how the introduction of a stricter loss carryforward offset rule affects firms' innovation.

This study investigates the overall impact of a Korean tax reform that introduced a tighter loss deduction through a difference-in-differences approach and regression discontinuity design.

This study finds that firms subject to the more restrictive tax loss offset provisions tend to file fewer patents than firms not subject to the provision. The authors further find that this effect is more pronounced for firms with high R&D intensity, more investment opportunities and weaker monitoring mechanisms.

The results of this study suggest that more restrictive loss carryforward provisions may deter firms from innovation. This study contributes to the literature on the impact of tax loss rules, the effect of tax policies on investments and the real effects of corporate taxation.

This study sheds light on the debate of the consequences of a Korean tax reform. Specifically, the authors examine whether a stricter tax loss offset policy indeed dampens corporate innovation.

This study exploits a unique and infrequent exogenous tax policy change. The South Korean tax reform creates a treatment group of large firms that were affected by the tax reform, and a control group of small and medium-sized firms that were unaffected. This study takes advantage of this setting to examine the research question.

This study examines the association between geopolitical risk (GPR) and corporate tax, which is a major source of revenue for the government and a significant explicit cost for firms. The authors use a comprehensive measure of GPR to study its effects on corporate taxes by using an international sample.

The authors adopt the geopolitical measure constructed by Caldara and Iacoviello (2022) as a proxy for GPR and cash-effective tax rate benchmarked with statutory tax rate to measure corporate tax avoidance. The authors employ panel regression with fixed effects (FEs) to investigate the impact of GPR on corporate tax avoidance. The authors also conduct a battery of robustness tests to ensure the strength of the study’s results.

This study’s empirical results indicate that sample firms increase their tax avoidance amid increasing GPR. Further analyses show that financial constraints incentivize firms to avoid taxes during rising geopolitical tensions. The authors also provide evidence on the role of firm-level and country-level governance in weakening the association between GPR and tax avoidance.

Policymakers and governments may strengthen the enforcement rule to limit aggressive tax practices of corporates during GPR to balance fiscal deficit. In addition, this study sheds light on the debate among administrators and politicians over the efficacy of current tax laws and governance structures in the presence of heightened GPR.

The authors extend the literature on GPR by analyzing its effect on corporate tax avoidance. Unlike existing single-country studies, the authors use a cross-country setup to investigate the impact of GPR on tax avoidance, making this study’s results more generalizable as the authors control for a host of country, industry, and time factors. Apart from political uncertainty, terrorism, and climatic issues, the authors document GPR as a strong macroeconomic driver of corporate tax avoidance. The authors make a new contribution to the literature on the moderating role of governance and institutional factors on the association between tax avoidance and GPR in an international context. The authors also contribute to the literature on macroeconomic determinants of tax avoidance.

This paper examines the relationship between tax avoidance and accounting comparability. The authors argue that aggressive tax behavior impairs the comparability of financial statements by altering the accounting function, which maps economic events into accounting data.

The empirical analysis is based on a large sample of United States (US) firms. The authors use raw and industry-adjusted effective tax rates (ETRs) to proxy tax avoidance. The authors use the measure of accounting comparability developed by De Franco et al. (2011), which aims to capture the similarity of the accounting function.

The authors find that firms with more aggressive tax avoidance strategies have substantially lower accounting comparability. The evidence also shows that the negative effect of tax avoidance on accounting comparability is driven by firms with aggressive tax planning strategies beyond the industry norm. Furthermore, using an alternative measure of accounting comparability as a function of pre-tax income, the authors continue to find evidence of the negative effect of tax avoidance behavior. Importantly, this provides evidence that the effect of aggressive tax planning is not limited to the reported tax expense, but affects the comparability of the overall financial reporting system.

The authors identify a new potential cost of tax aggressive activities, being the loss of accounting comparability as driven by tax aggressive activities. The results contribute to the literature on the costs of tax avoidance and on the determinants of accounting comparability.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.