Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the relation between tax reporting and financial reporting, their influence on transparency, and empirical implications.

I reexamine the conflicting results in Frank, Lynch, and Rego (2009) and Lennox, Lisowsky, and Pittman (2013). Frank et al. (2009) conclude that firms can manage book income upward and taxable income downward in the same period, implying a positive relation between aggressive book and tax reporting. Lennox et al. (2013) conclude the relation is negative and aggressive book reporting informs users that aggressive tax reporting is less likely. I identify four key differences in the research designs across the two studies, including measures of aggressive book reporting, measures of aggressive tax reporting, sample time periods, and empirical models. I systematically examine whether each of these differences is responsible for the conflicting results by altering the key difference while holding other factors as constant as possible. I find the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting is driven by the measure of aggressive book reporting, as the relation is positive for some subsets of firms and negative for others. Firms accused of financial statement fraud have a negative relation while nonfraud firms exhibit a positive relation. Using discretionary accruals, I also look for, but do not find a “pivot point” in the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting. I provide a better understanding of the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting by identifying research design choices that are responsible for prior results. I show that measures of both discretionary accruals and financial statement fraud are necessary to gain a more complete picture of the relation between aggressive book and tax reporting.

To better detect potential audit issues, since 2010, the Internal Revenue Service has required firms to file a separate schedule individually disclosing each of their uncertain tax positions (UTPs). This study uses an experiment to examine how this increase in detection risk from the newly created IRS schedule influences both a firm’s tax reporting and financial reporting concurrently. We find that corporate tax professionals were more likely to recommend an UTP when their firm had a strong UTP reporting quality, regardless of the detection risk level of the reporting environment. However, we find an interaction effect for the recording of the tax reserve. In a low detection risk environment, corporate tax professionals recorded a higher (lower) tax reserve when their firm had a weak (strong) UTP reporting quality. However, in a high detection risk environment, corporate tax professionals recorded a lower (higher) tax reserve when their firm had a weak (strong) UTP reporting quality. Overall, the results provide insight into the dual nature of UTP reporting and the determinants that influence each reporting behavior.

Prior studies document a positive relation between stock prices and tax-related contingent liability, unrecognized tax benefits (UTBs) and interpret the finding as evidence that investors reward tax aggressiveness. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of this puzzle finding by considering a link between UTBs and financial reporting strategy and propose that financial reporting conservatism may explain the positive association between UTBs and stock prices.

To estimate the incremental valuation weights on UTBs, the authors employ the Ohlson (1995) valuation model and regress stock prices on UTBs and its interactions with the proxies for financial reporting conservatism and tax aggressiveness. Further, the authors adopt a UTB estimation model to decompose its balance into the predicted and unpredicted components.

The authors find that the reporting conservatism has a positive effect on the market valuation of UTBs. The authors also find some evidence that tax aggressiveness increases the valuation weight of UTBs. When UTBs are decomposed into predicted and unpredicted components, the authors find that the effect of financial reporting conservatism is more pronounced for the market valuation of predicted UTBs. Collectively, the evidence suggests that conservative financial reporting is a major driver of the positive valuation of UTBs and that tax aggressiveness plays a less significant role in investors' valuation decisions.

While prior studies focus on how UTBs are associated with stock prices, this paper is the first attempt to explain why UTBs are positively valued by investors.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of financial factors on firms’ financial and tax reporting decisions. Firms often face the difficulties of accomplishing both financial and reporting goals. The extent to which reporting they put more value depends on the differential weighting of firms’ financial reporting and tax costs. The authors incorporate various financial factors as a source of cross-sectional differences in the weighing of both financial reporting and tax costs.

To examine firms’ decisions when fulfilling both the purposes of financial and tax reporting is difficult, the authors use a large set of firms in Korea, where book-tax conformity is high and aggressive tax shelters are restricted. The authors develop a new measure that can specify firms’ decision making between financial and tax reporting by considering both earnings management and tax avoidance.

The findings show that debt ratio affects firms’ financial and tax reporting decisions non-monotonically depending on the level of the debt ratio. The authors also find that firms with more long-term debt financing are more likely to be aggressive in financial reporting, while firms with higher financing deficit or better access to the capital market are more likely to be aggressive in tax reporting.

Thus, the findings provide more compelling evidence of firms’ decision making between two conflicting strategies, particularly when fulfilling both the purposes of financial and tax reporting is difficult. The authors expect that the results provide practical implications to standard setters, auditors and financial statement users who are interested in the ongoing debate over book-tax tradeoffs.

This paper fulfills an identified need to study how firms’ decision making between two conflicting reporting strategies are affected by the various financial factors, which are closely linked to a firm’s financial reporting and tax costs.

Using tax abatements to spur economic development can be controversial. The potential benefits are stressed when abatements are granted, but subsequent reporting may be insufficient for citizens to hold governments accountable for actual results. We solicited perspectives on tax abatements from three user groups (citizens representing advocacy groups, county board members, and financial analysts) and county officials involved in financial reporting, budgeting, or property tax administration. Users and preparers expressed generally similar views about the need for reporting; however, some differences were evident in the degree of support for reporting specific information items and the format for making information available. We also found that much information desired by users is not available to them currently, and governments may need to create mechanisms to collect information.

This chapter investigates the effect of moral reasoning of tax professionals on the aggressiveness of their reporting recommendations. The findings of the study indicate moral reasoning influences the aggressiveness of tax reporting decisions separate from the influence of client pressure. As the level of moral reasoning increases, the aggressiveness of the reporting position is found to0 decrease. Contrary to prior research, client pressure is not related to tax reporting aggressiveness. Failure to observe this relationship may signal a shift in behavior resulting from the intense public and regulatory scrutiny at the time of data collection which was in the immediate aftermath of the Enron scandal.

US tax-exempt nonprofits are chronically underdeveloped when it comes to reporting, communicating and comparing the value they create. This paper aims to explore an approach to address these reporting and disclosure issues, for the purpose of sustainability and impact.

First, the authors ask and then answer: is it time to clean up US tax-exempt nonprofit reporting? Second, the authors develop a theoretical argument, based on commensuration of impact, for a specific tax-exempt integrated report (IR), to compare the value of tax-exempt nonprofits. Third, this study offers an example of this tax-exempt IR in practice.

First, this study evidences the need for a drastic shift in the expectations and reporting practices of US tax-exempt nonprofits. Second, this study offers an IR framework that responds to recent scholarly calls to address organizational accountability boundaries and impact assessment in the nonprofit sector. Third, this contributes to sustainability policy conversation by mapping out an approach that US tax-exempt nonprofits could deploy to speed up the implementation of sustainable solutions (Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] 17).

This study contributes to sustainability conversation by closing with a discussion of why policymakers, managers and scholars should continue to push for maximum impact from US tax-exempt nonprofits. If addressing the UN SDGs is a desired outcome, then there is an immediate need for change in the way US nonprofits report what they do. This study suggests that learning from the European Union reporting practices and regulations will facilitate a move toward improved reliability, comparability and impact from US nonprofits.

The aim of this paper was to present a disclosure framework that provides reliable and comparable information of the value created by tax-exempt nonprofits. This principle-based framework is rooted in the IR literature and extends into the prosocial world of tax-exempt nonprofits, recognizing that is it goes farther than simply being a framework; it is a social process.

This paper responds to recent calls for more oversight and comparison disclosure mechanisms of US tax-exempt nonprofits, for the purpose of reducing social or environmental inequality. The framework makes an important contribution to the field of sustainability accounting, in that it promotes a principle-based approach for measuring and regulating tax-exempt nonprofits, in a way that motivates oversight and comparison of sustainability-related practices.

This study examines the influence of peers in the tax compliance setting using a social learning theory approach to investigate the effect of observing a peer's likelihood of reporting income. We also examine the role that gender plays in these decisions. We ask participants to estimate the likelihood of reporting income and to make a binary compliance decision in a setting where they are able to observe what they believe is another's response to a hypothetical tax reporting scenario. Participants who viewed the decision of a noncompliant peer were less likely to report honestly than those who viewed the decision of a compliant peer. This finding provides further evidence of a potential effect for peer influence. Consistent with prior literature, we find that women are more likely to comply than men, but do not find an interactive effect with peer observation. A supplemental experiment indicated that participants who believed their responses would be seen by a peer were less likely to report honestly than participants who believed their responses would remain private. This result, although counter-intuitive, is consistent with Wenzel's (2005a) description of a self–other discrepancy and conformance to a misperceived social norm.

In August 2015, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) adopted Statement 77, requiring government disclosure in audited financial reports of a particular type of tax expenditure, tax abatements. GASB's reporting standards move tax abatements from a budgetary environment to an accounting environment. This paper evaluates GASB 77's provisions to encourage an early and on-going dialogue about the Statement's prospects for achieving greater transparency compared to existing tax expenditure reporting efforts. We conclude that GASB 77 will be most beneficial to consumers of financial information in medium and large jurisdictions where there is no alternative tax abatement disclosure platform, or where the alternative offers less transparency than what can be achieved through financial reporting.