Search results

Prior research finds evidence that audit quality is positively associated with the joint purchase of tax nonaudit services (NAS) and concludes that jointly provided tax services result in audit-related knowledge spillovers that lead to improved audit quality. We extend this line of research. We examine the relation between auditor-provided tax services and restatements and determine whether this relation differs when the auditor is a small or large accounting firm. We also examine whether the Securities Exchange Commission’s restrictions on certain tax consulting practices (SEC, 2006) altered this relation. Specifically, we measure whether the probability of financial statement restatements varies with (1) variation in accounting firm size (measured as PCAOB annually inspected firms versus PCAOB triennially inspected firms), and (2) the joint provision of audit and tax services. We find a negative relation between auditor-provided tax services and restatements which is consistent with prior research. We also find that this relation is significantly more negative when the auditor is a small accounting firm. Finally, we find that the lower probability of a restatement associated with the joint provision of audit and tax services persists regardless of auditor size after the SEC-imposed restrictions on certain tax consulting services in 2006. Our study provides evidence that accounting firms, and particularly small accounting firms, benefit from knowledge spillovers when jointly providing audit and tax services and these benefits lead to improved audit quality. Prior research concludes that large auditors provide higher audit quality and that the provision of tax services improves audit quality. Our results provide evidence that audit quality improvements are greater for small auditors and their clients. This improvement narrows that audit quality gap between large and small auditors. We do not find evidence that the SEC’s restrictions on certain tax consulting services altered the relation between audit quality and tax services.

The experimental parliamentary subsidy on knights' fees and freehold incomes from lands and rents of 1431 was the only English direct lay tax of the Middle Ages which broke down. As such, this subsidy has a clear historiographical significance, yet previous scholars have tended to overlook it on the grounds that parliament's annulment act of 1432 mandated the destruction of all fiscal administrative evidence. Many county assessments from 1431–1432 do, however, survive and are examined for the first time in this article as part of a detailed assessment of the fiscal and administrative context of the knights' fees and incomes tax. This impost constituted a royal response to excess expenditures associated with Henry VI's “Coronation Expedition” of 1429–1431, the scale of which marked a decisive break from the fiscal-military strategy of the 1420s. Widespread confusion regarding whether taxpayers ought to pay the feudal or the non-feudal component of the 1431 subsidy characterized its botched administration. Industrial scale under-assessment, moreover, emerged as a serious problem. Officials' attempts to provide a measure of fiscal compensation by unlawfully double-assessing many taxpayers served to increase administrative confusion and resulted in parliament's annulment act of 1432. This had serious consequences for the crown's finances, since the regime was saddled with budgetary and debt problems which would ultimately undermine the solvency of the Lancastrian state.

This research aims to study whether consumers differ in their attitudes toward equivalent prices that include vs exclude taxes and fees. In addition, this research will study whether computation ease-based processing fluency and perceived price fairness mediate this relationship in parallel, and whether need for cognition and political beliefs and affiliation moderate the effect.

Two experiments were conducted in which participants evaluated two price formats and then responded to relevant measures.

This research shows that consumers perceive prices that include (vs exclude) taxes and fees to be easier to process, and a fairer price, and subsequently exhibit a higher willingness to buy. Additionally, this effect is moderated by need for cognition, and political beliefs and affiliation.

Future research could investigate potential additional situational moderators (such as price type – total vs unit, consumption category, relative sizes of base price vs taxes and fees) and dispositional moderators (such as price sensitivity and tightwadism/spendthriftism).

This research provides insights to marketers regarding the downstream impact of pricing decisions – such as including vs excluding taxes and fees from total price. Further, depending on the product category and target customer characteristics (political affiliation), marketers can determine whether to include or exclude taxes and fees.

This research highlights the tendency of conservatives to avoid taxes and fees. As such, it adds to the understanding of conservative consumer groups.

This research contributes to existing research on price-framing research by finding an interesting effect related to multi-dimensional pricing and partitioned pricing. Additionally, this research contributes to existing research on computation ease-based processing fluency and price fairness perception. Finally, this contributes to an increasingly important body of research: the effect of political affiliation on consumption. This also provides clear guidance to marketers with regard to deciding service pricing.

This paper attempts to empirically examine the property taxes and fees for residential development to determine whether they have a significant impact on house prices in Sydney and Taipei.

Property charges and taxes in Sydney and Taipei are examined and compared. A conclusion is then drawn from the results of the analysis.

It is found that property taxes and fees account for a substantial portion of property prices in Sydney but not Taipei. There is room for the government to reduce the amount of property taxes and fees to enhance housing affordability in Sydney.

This study has limitations in that only two cities are involved. As such, the findings are not exhaustive or conclusive. When conditions allow, a comprehensive study of all major cities in the two countries should be conducted. Nevertheless, this study does provide some background information about cost components of house prices and the impact of property taxes and fees in both cities. It may serve as a stepping stone for future research.

High property taxes and fees are suspected to be a culprit for causing high house prices. The findings of the paper show that it is true in Sydney, but not Taipei. It implies that by cutting property taxes and fees alone may not solve the high house price problem.

This paper demonstrates that high property taxes and fees have a significant impact on house prices in Sydney. However, their impact on house prices in Taipei is minimal. The difference shows that high property taxes and fees may not be the cause of high house prices in all countries.

This study examines companies that separated or integrated the tax and audit functions subsequent to the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SARBOX). While the provision of tax services is not currently prohibited by SARBOX, some companies have separated these two functions. An examination of the relationship between tax function separation (integration) and proxies for audit quality, tax advocacy and audit fee is performed for a matched sample of companies that made the decision to separate or integrate during the period following the passage of SARBOX. In addition, we survey CFOs of both types of companies to determine the motivations behind the separation/integration decision. Our results indicate separation firm CFOs perceive benefits associated with auditor independence as their main reason for separating, while integration firm CFOs perceive cost savings and knowledge spillover as benefits of integration. The matched‐pair analysis suggests that both cost‐savings and tax‐savings are present in the year the tax and audit function is integrated, a benefit not enjoyed by their separation firm peers.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of audit fees, auditors' quality and board ownership on tax aggressiveness in Thailand.

The sample of this study is based on 215 firm-year observations of SET-100 listed companies in Thailand during the 2010–2018 periods. This study employs a panel least square regression with period fixed effects. The study retrieved the corporate governance variables from the downloaded annual reports, whilst the remaining data were collected from the EMIS database.

This study provides evidence that audit fees reduce tax aggressiveness and board ownership enhance tax aggressiveness among the firms. Nonaudit services provided by auditors impair auditors' independence and lead to higher tax aggressiveness. The result supports the agency theory, which explains that managers and blockholders may enjoy private benefits of control at the expense of other shareholders in the absence of market control. Thus, firms need good governance practices such as incentives paid for the effort of auditors and nonaudit services monitoring to curb such exploitation.

The results provide implications to the firms and regulators that incentives to the monitoring parties such as auditors can reduce tax aggressiveness among the firms. Nevertheless, higher ownership given to boards as incentives may lead to concentrated ownership and thus lead to the type 2 agency problem, which is between majority and minority shareholders. The result also provides caution to the regulators to monitor the nonaudit services provided by the auditors as it might impair their independence and compromise the tax paid to IRB.

This study is pioneer research discussing tax avoidance in Thailand. The Thai Government has been noticing that tax avoidance is being performed in the country, but academic discussion on this topic had never been elaborated.

Regulators treat all non-audit services the same by using a broad-brush approach which is reflected in the study of total non-audit fees in the same analyses or different non-audit fees in isolation by prior studies. To know whether the non-audit services have different effects and hence, should be regulated separately, this paper compares their effects on audit report lag and examines whether they follow the implied hierarchy of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The effects of audit-related non-audit fees, tax fees and other non-audit fees are compared in an audit report lag model to determine whether they are the same statistically. Supporting tests for audit quality use discretionary accruals and the reporting of a small profit or small positive change in profit.

This paper finds that different non-audit fees do not have the same effects on report lag and partial support for the implied hierarchy of the Commission. Specifically, for large accelerated filers, audit-related fees and tax fees have the same negative effects on report lag but other non-audit fees are unrelated to report lag. Tests of audit quality suggest that auditors do not compromise audit quality.

Different non-audit services are unique in their spillover effects and deserve individual attention. Audit practitioners could be more comfortable in providing audit-related non-audit or tax services for audit clients since these services could facilitate audit work without compromising independence. On the other hand, they should be cautious about the provision of other non-audit services because the services do not enhance the efficiency of audit work and without such a benefit to audit clients, the provision may create issues of perceived independence.

Insight is limited by the types of disclosure of non-audit fees available and the lack of internal measures of audit efficiency.

The results provide deeper insight into the knowledge spillover theory and prior studies which implicitly assume all non-audit services having the same effect. The results suggest that the services should be regulated each on its own but not in a bundle. Last, this paper provides the first evidence that audit-related non-audit fees reduce report lag.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the association between auditor-provided tax services (APTS) and long-term corporate tax rates.

The paper uses empirical data and multivariate regression models to explore the relationship between a firm’s use of APTS and their long-term effective tax rate.

An economically and statistically significant long-term negative relationship was found between firm levels of APTS and taxes paid. Further, a portion of this benefit is lost for some firms when returning to their auditor for tax services even after a short break.

This paper contributes to the debate regarding the value of APTS by providing evidence of the apparent long-term negative consequences to firms who reduce their reliance on APTS, perhaps even through the engagement of separate accounting firms for their audit and tax functions, although these consequences may be mitigated upon return with a significant increase in APTS. However, this is the first study, to our knowledge, to explore, in a long-term setting, the consequences of a firm’s return to their auditors for a non-audit service previously reduced or terminated. Additionally, further incremental contributions are made to other studies that look at APTS and tax avoidance by studying the long-term relationship which allows firms to consider the cumulative cost/benefit relationship between independence and knowledge spillover.

Prior research has identified a number of variables that influence tax professionals’ judgments. However, these variables have usually been examined in isolation. This study has two main findings. First, using a structured questionnaire that allows for the collection of variables related to actual tax planning engagements, this study validates the findings of numerous laboratory studies using factor and regression analysis. Factors representing risks and rewards associated with the client and the IRS, along with task characteristics and client aggressiveness significantly affect the aggressiveness of tax advice given to clients. Second, tax professionals do not appear to charge a premium for aggressive tax advice. However, regarding the fee charged, a significant gender effect is found even after controlling for time spent on the engagement, experience, firm size and education.