Tax credit rating and corporate innovation decisions

The tax credit rating mechanism was formally implemented in 2014. As an important tax collection and management innovation, it has attracted the attention of regulatory authorities and scholars. Different from the literature that directly examines corporate tax compliance, we focus on the impact of tax credit rating implementation on corporate research and development (R&D) investment decisions. Using listed companies’ data from 2014 to 2019, we find that companies with higher tax credit ratings invest more in innovation, because the system helps managers identify R&D opportunities, alleviates corporate financing constraints and reduces agency costs. We confirm that tax credit ratings have manifold impacts on corporate information environments and business decisions, with better ratings positively affecting firms’ business decisions. This discovery can inform tax policy reform, encourage corporate innovation and construct social credit systems.     

Innovation,financial reporting quality,and audit quality

We examine the relation between innovation and financial reporting quality (FRQ) and the implications of audit quality for this relation. We first document a negative relation between innovation and FRQ. This result is consistent with greater earnings management at higher innovation firms, likely because of the more opaque information environment that gives managers the opportunity to act opportunistically. We then examine whether audit quality moderates the observed negative relation between innovation and FRQ because audit quality constrains managers’ opportunities to manage earnings. We find results consistent with the predicted moderating effect. Lastly, we verify that these findings hold in a difference-in-differences test designed around an exogenous event, state R&D tax credits.     

Corporate taxation and the quality of research and development

This paper examines the impact of tax incentives on corporate research and development (R&D) activity. R&D tax incentives are commonly provided as special tax allowances or tax credits. In recent years, several countries also reduced their income tax rates on R&D output with the purpose to foster R&D activity. Previous papers have shown that all three tax instruments are effective in raising the quantity of R&D related activity. We in turn assess the impact of corporate tax incentives on the quality of R&D projects, i.e., their innovativeness and earnings potential. Using rich data on corporate patent applications to the European patent office, we find that a low tax rate on patent income raises the average profitability and innovation level of the projects undertaken in a country. The effect is statistically significant and economically relevant and prevails in a number of sensitivity checks. Generous R&D tax credits and tax allowances are in contrast found to exert a negative impact on project quality.     

Limits of tax regulation: Evidence from strategic R&D classification and the R&D tax credit

We investigate a tax avoidance strategy where firms use the ambiguity inherent in tax reporting to classify indirect costs as research and development (R&D) expenditures to take advantage of the R&D tax credit. We label this tax practice “strategic R&D classification”. We find a one standard deviation increase in strategic R&D classification leads, on average, to a 1.7% (1.5%) reduction in GAAP (cash) effective tax rates, suggesting this practice provides significant tax savings. However, we also find strategic R&D classification is related to both the level and changes in uncertain tax benefit liabilities required to be recognized under FIN 48, suggesting this practice comes with financial reporting costs. Our study contributes to the literature by documenting some of the costs and benefits associated with a previously unexplored tax strategy, and highlights the limitations faced by tax authorities in monitoring firms’ R&D tax credit.     

R&D tax credits,technology spillovers,and firms' product convergence

Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) setting that leverages the staggered adoption of R&D tax credits across the U.S. states, we show that after a firm receives the tax credits, products of its peers become significantly more similar to the recipient firm. Such product convergence is particularly strong when peer firms face greater pressure from market participants to uphold short-term performances. We further show that the effect of R&D tax credits likely works through the increased technology spillovers, which motivate peers to imitate instead of differentiating. Accordingly, we show that peer firms shift their patent composition from breakthrough to incremental innovations following the R&D tax subsidy.     

What is the After‐Tax Price of R&D? An Interstate Comparison*

As of 2005, 31 US states offered corporate income tax credits on research and development (R&D) expenses in order to encourage more in‐state innovation activities. Empirical questions about the efficacy of such tax breaks at the state level persist, in part because the complexity of the tax laws means that simple credit‐rate comparisons across states do not fully capture the differential variation in effective after‐tax price incentives firms face in choosing where to locate R&D activities. We are unaware of any research analysing and comparing the effective prices of R&D faced by firms, across all US states and utilising micro‐level data. Using data extracted from detailed reading of individual firms' 10‐K and S‐1 filings and of state‐level tax credit rules, we estimate the effective after‐tax price of basic and qualified research expenditure each firm would have faced in each of the 50 states had they been located there. Our methodology simulates the effective tax price of each firm's marginal dollar of research expenditure, assuming the firm chose to move all of its R&D operations to each of the 49 other states. Through Monte Carlo techniques, we consider the sensitivity of our interstate comparative results to several modelling assumptions. We find significant variation in after‐tax R&D prices across states with quite different R&D tax laws. Prices range from $0.176 to $0.520 on a marginal dollar of R&D in Virginia and Washington State, respectively. We also find that the interstate variability is generally more important – indeed, much wider than we had anticipated before investigating state‐by‐state regulations – than the inter‐firm variability within states.     

Peer R&D disclosure and corporate innovation: Evidence from American depositary receipt firms

In this paper, we examine the effect of peer research and development (R&D) disclosures on corporate innovation. R&D disclosures can generate externalities for related firms, enabling those firms to better infer a project's likely payoffs and thus prioritize projects with higher net present values. We use a sample of foreign firms cross-listed on U.S. exchanges to investigate whether U.S. peer firms experience externalities from the cross-listing firm's R&D disclosures. We find that R&D disclosures by cross-listing firms are associated with greater innovation for industry peers in the U.S. market, especially when product market competition is high. The effect also varies with the home country's legal protection systems, disclosure environments, and accounting reporting rules. Cross-sectional analyses indicate that the externalities are more pronounced in industries or firms that rely more on external financing and firms subject to higher financial constraints; disclosures of higher quality appear to promote innovation by ameliorating financing frictions. Overall, this study provides evidence of R&D disclosure as an industry-wide determinant of innovation, thereby contributing to literature on the real effects of peer disclosures.     

Government R&D spending,fiscal instruments and corporate technological innovation

Using panel data from 242 cities in China, we examine the impact of government research and development (R&D) spending on corporate technological innovation. We find that listed firms located in cities with higher government R&D expenditures are more innovative than firms in other cities. Further, the positive effect of government R&D spending depends on fiscal instruments and factor allocation. Through subsidies and tax incentives, government R&D spending enhances firm innovation by alleviating financing constraints, improving employee creativity and ensuring efficient operations. We demonstrate that subsidies are more effective than taxes in spurring corporate technological innovation. We also show that the impact of government R&D spending is stronger for state-owned and high-tech enterprises than for other enterprises. Overall, our findings suggest that government R&D spending can substantially improve corporate technological innovation through fiscal instruments.     

Firm R&D and financial analysis: How do they interact?

This paper demonstrates, theoretically and empirically, that firms’ research and development (R&D) efforts and investors’ analyses of their prospects are mutually reinforcing. Entrepreneurs attempt more research when financiers are better informed about projects’ profitability because they expect financiers to provide more funding to successful projects. Conversely, financiers collect more information about projects when entrepreneurs undertake more R&D because the opportunity cost of missing out on successful projects is then higher. Two natural experiments confirm that this interaction occurs and suggest that it contributes to about one third of the total effect of a policy designed to stimulate R&D. Overall, the analysis suggests that policies aimed at promoting R&D – such as research subsidies or tax breaks – have a multiplier effect owing to the induced improvement in capital efficiency. As a result, those policies can be rendered more effective by coupling them with other policies designed to increase capital efficiency. The feedback effect that we document also helps explaining why innovative ecosystems such as that in the Silicon Valley are challenging to set up.     

Will the real R&D employees please stand up? Effects of tax breaks on firm-level outcomes

This paper evaluates the effect of tax incentives for research and development (R&D) on R&D spending and employment of R&D staff in a quasi-experimental setting. To do this, I exploit an exogenous reform in UK R&D tax policy, which changed the definition of an SME from firms with fewer than 250 employees to those with fewer than 500 employees. I use the UK Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey (BERD), for which companies do not have an incentive to relabel their ordinary employees or spending as R&D. I find that R&D tax incentives help to increase R&D spending at the company level; this translates to a user cost elasticity between ?0.88 and ?1.18. Further, the additional R&D generated through the tax relief can be attributed entirely to an increase in the number of R&D employees in the companies’ workforce. Together, these results challenge a common narrative on the role of R&D tax incentives.     

The impact of intangibles on firms’ financial and market performance: UK evidence

This study provides empirical evidence about the effect of intangible assets on firms’ current and future financial and market performance by utilizing a sample the UK FTSE 150 nonfinancial companies. Generally, the findings of this examination reported a strong evidence on the role of intangibles in boosting firms’ performance. In particular, the results indicate that while goodwill (GW) does have a statistically positive effect on firms’ current and future performance, research and development (R&D) is only associated with firms’ future performance. The results of the current research is consistent with the market-based and resources-based theories which posits that intangible investments are the main driving factors of wealth creation in the long-run; Specifically, R&D operations can create new technologies and products that would enhance firms’ performance and value. In addition, the results reveal that both GW and R&D can explain variations in firms’ financial performance measures suggesting that such investments can enhance firms’ earning leading to capitalization such earnings in the market value. Finally, the results of this research provide practical implication for policy makers and managers.     

Measuring the Cost‐Effectiveness of an R&D Tax Credit for the UK

This paper investigates the economic impact of the government's proposed new UK R&D tax credit. We measure the benefit of the credit by the effect on value added in the short and long runs. This is simulated from existing econometric estimates of the tax‐price elasticity of research and development (R&D) and the effect of R&D on productivity. For the latter, we allow R&D to have an effect on technology transfer (catching up with the technological frontier) as well as innovation (pushing the frontier forward). We then compare the increase in value added to the likely exchequer costs of the programme under a number of scenarios. In the long run, the increase in GDP far outweighs the costs of the tax credit. The short‐run effect is far smaller, with value added only exceeding cost if R&D grows at or below the rate of inflation.     

Cash flow uncertainty,financial constraints and R&D investment

Based on the data from Chinese listed companies of Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets between 2005 and 2016, we systematically examine the relationship between cash flow uncertainty and R&D investment, and further research the moderating effect of financial constraints on the association between the two. Our empirical results find that R&D investment decisions tend to be more conservative and cautious due to cash flow uncertainty, which is not conducive to innovation efficiency. Firms with higher cash flow uncertainty invest more cautiously in R&D innovation, whereas firms with lower cash flow invest more boldly in R&D innovation. Financial friction may exacerbate the negative impact of cash flow uncertainty on innovation activities. Strategic cash holding can help firms better deal with the risks caused by cash flow uncertainty. In provinces with high marketization, the market competition intensifies, resulting in more significant cash flow uncertainty.     

R&D tax incentives: a reappraisal

This paper examines R&D tax incentives in oligopolistic markets. We characterize the conditions under which tax incentives reach the socially desirable level of firm-financed R&D spending. The outcome of the market depends not only on the level of technological spillover in the industry but also on the degree of strategic interaction between the firms. One major result emerges from the model: The socially desirable level of R&D investment is not necessarily reached by subsidizing R&D. When the technological spillover is sufficiently low, the government might want to tax R&D investments, and this result does not necessarily arise because firms are overinvesting in R&D. There are also cases in which an R&D tax is desirable even though firms are underinvesting in R&D compared with the first-best optimum. In practice, this theoretical finding calls for a lower sales tax combined with an R&D subsidy in oligopolistic industries with high technological spillovers, and a lower sales tax combined with an R&D tax in oligopolistic industries with low technological spillovers.     

Do major customers promote firms’ innovation?

This study examines whether and how a concentrated supply chain relationship affects a firm’s innovation decisions. Using data from Chinese listed firms in the manufacturing industry, we find that a concentrated customer base constrains a firm’s R&D investment, where a 1% increase in customer concentration is associated with a 0.011% decrease in R&D investment. To establish causality, we use the instrumental variable method, the reverse causality model, and the Granger causality test to re-examine the relationship and arrive at a consistent conclusion. Results from mechanism analysis suggest that a concentrated customer base constrains the internal fund availability and that the negative relationship between customer concentration and firms’ innovation is less pronounced for firms with more external financial support. Additional analysis reveals that the negative effect of customer concentration mainly affects R&D investment expenditure and that customer concentration also constrains innovation output in China. Overall, our paper reveals the dark side of close customer-supplier relationships and provides new insights into how supply chain relationships affect firms’ innovation decisions.     

Accounting choice and future performance: The case of R&D accounting in France

We examine whether managers’ decisions to capitalize or expense R&D expenditures convey information about the future performance of the firm. Focusing on a French setting where managers can choose to capitalize R&D expenditures under certain circumstances, we find that, after controlling for industry effects, firms that capitalize R&D expenditures spend less on R&D, have more volatile R&D efforts, and are smaller and more leveraged than firms that expense R&D expenditures. We also find that capitalizers capitalize R&D outlays when they need to meet or beat thresholds. Finally, we show that the decision to capitalize R&D is generally associated with a negative or neutral impact on future performance, even after controlling for self-selection. Our results also show that when firms both capitalize and expense R&D expenditures, the expensed portion exhibits a stronger (and negative) relationship with future performance. Market-based tests corroborate these findings. While we cannot unambiguously establish whether our findings imply that management uses R&D capitalization to manage earnings or because it is unable to estimate the earning power of R&D projects, our results suggest that management is unable to truthfully convey information about future performance through its decision to capitalize R&D. Our findings, based on real data as opposed to simulated data, therefore contrast with previous supportive evidence in favor of capitalization in the literature.     

Vertical merger,R&D collaboration and innovation

This paper studies the effects of vertical merger and R&D collaboration activities on firms' innovation decisions and stock returns based on a continuous-time real option model under market and technological uncertainties. Our analysis confirms vertical merger's benefit in amplifying the potential gain from innovation through eliminating inefficiencies. We show that vertical merger boosts innovation incentives in two ways: it reduces the optimal innovation threshold when firms suspend the project and increases R&D investment when firms launch the project. If vertical merger is not possible, R&D collaboration can improve firms' innovation levels as an alternative decision, but inefficiencies still exist which implies less pronounced stimulation effects. Both vertical merger and R&D collaboration can reduce firms' risk when conducting innovation project and weaken the positive R&D-returns relation and financial constraints-returns relation, while these effects of vertical merger are stronger than those of R&D collaboration.     

Style investing and firm innovation

We document that transient, dedicated and quasi-indexed institutional investors exhibit a high degree of within-group heterogeneity with respect to their investment styles (i.e., growth, value, and balanced). We find that growth institutional investors enhance firm innovation in terms of R&D expenditures, R&D intensity, quantity and quality of patents and patent radicalness while value institutional investors impede innovation. Balanced investors have no significant association with innovation. Findings are consistent with style investing literature that growth and value styles are substitutes. Using investment styles, we present evidence that reconcile literature’s mixed findings on how transient and dedicated investors affect R&D and innovation, and why quasi-indexed investors, the largest group among all investors, have an insignificant effect. We also show that the effect of institutional investors depends on the firm’s relative level of innovativeness.     

Access to private equity and real firm activity: Evidence from PIPEs

We study how access to private equity financing affects real firm activities using a broad panel of publicly traded U.S. firms that raise external equity through private placements (PIPEs) between 1995 and 2008. The public firms relying on PIPEs are generally small, high-tech firms that cannot finance investment internally and likely face severe external financing constraints; PIPEs are by far the most important source of finance for these firms. We show that firms use PIPE inflows to maintain extremely high R&D investment ratios and to build substantial cash reserves. We also use GMM techniques that control for firm-specific effects and the endogeneity of the decision to raise private equity and find that PIPE funding has a substantial impact on corporate investment in cash reserves and R&D, and a smaller but significant impact on investment in non-cash working capital, but little impact on fixed investment or acquisitions. Our estimates indicate that R&D investment initially increases by $0.20–$0.25 for each dollar of private equity flowing into the firm, and that PIPE funds initially invested in cash ultimately go to R&D. These findings offer direct evidence that access to private equity finance has an important effect on the key input that drives innovation at the firm- and economy-wide levels.     

International tax competition with endogenous sequencing

This paper examines endogenous timing in an international tax competition model. Unlike existing studies, governments are assumed to decide not only tax rates but also whether they are set early or late. The Nash equilibrium provides four conclusions for alternative double tax allowances. First, tax deductions cause simultaneous tax competition, whereas tax credits yield sequential tax competition. Second, any double taxation relief would generate capital trade. Third, a credit system could maximize one country’s economic welfare but would lower another country’s economic welfare more than a deduction regime. Fourth, a home country’s government would choose credit regimes under a maximax rule, but select deduction methods under minimax and maximin rules, while all double tax allowances are indifferent to a host country. The findings resolve the question raised by Bond and Samuelson (Economic Journal 99:1099–1111, 1989) of why governments choose tax credits when tax deductions are clearly better. Namely, this paper shows that one country is better off but another is worse off with credits rather than deductions. Accordingly, we cannot clearly specify whether governments choose credit systems or deduction regimes. The possible double tax allowances employed by the governments depend on their own decision criterion.