Valuation of the Debt Tax Shield

In this study, we use cross–sectional regressions to estimate the value of the debt tax shield. Recognizing that debt is correlated with the value of operations along nontax dimensions, we estimate reverse regressions in which we regress future profitability on firm value and debt rather than regressing firm value on debt and profitability. Reversing the regressions mitigates bias and facilitates the use of market information to control for differences in risk and expected growth. Our estimated value for the debt tax shield is approximately 40 percent (10 percent) of debt balances (firm value), net of the personal tax disadvantage of debt.     

Tax Expense Momentum

We investigate the joint hypothesis that (1) tax expense contains information about core profitability that is incremental to reported earnings and (2) that information is reflected in stock prices with a delay. We find that seasonally differenced quarterly tax expense, our proxy for tax expense surprise, is related positively to future returns. This anomaly is separate from previously documented pricing anomalies based on financial and tax variables. Additional investigation reveals that tax expense surprise is related positively to changes in future quarterly earnings and tax expense, and both those future changes are related positively to future returns. While the returns to investing in predictable future earnings changes has been documented before, these results suggest that predicting changes in future tax expense also generates incremental future returns.     

Measuring income tax accrual quality

We develop and validate a measure of tax accrual quality. Tax accrual quality captures variation in the extent to which the income tax accrual maps into income tax-related cash flows, with lower variation indicating a higher quality tax accrual. Low tax accrual quality arises from (1) management estimation error and (2) financial reporting standards that lead to differences between income tax expense and income tax cash flows not captured by deferred tax assets and liabilities. We validate our tax accrual quality measure by showing it is associated with firm characteristics that capture both constructs and by demonstrating it predicts future tax-related restatements and internal control material weaknesses. We illustrate the importance of our measure by showing that investors view tax expense as more informative in firms with better tax accrual quality. Future researchers can use tax accrual quality to address questions related to estimation error in the income tax account.     

Taxes, Financing Decisions, and Firm Value

We use cross-sectional regressions to study how a firm's value is related to dividends and debt. With a good control for profitability, the regressions can measure how the taxation of dividends and debt affects firm value. Simple tax hypotheses say that value is negatively related to dividends and positively related to debt. We find the opposite. We infer that dividends and debt convey information about profitability (expected net cash flows) missed by a wide range of control variables. This information about profitability obscures any tax effects of financing decisions.     

新所得税准则对上市公司盈利能力影响分析

新所得税准则要求企业运用资产负债表债务法进行所得税核算。资产负债表债务法通过比较资产负债的计税基础计算出应纳税暂时性差异和可抵扣暂时性差异,进而确认当期递延所得税,调整当期的所得税费用,所得税费用的调整会影响企业当期的净利润,进而影响股东的每股收益。因此,暂时性差异会影响企业的盈利能力。本文采用统计分析方法,分析新所得税准则对上市公司盈利能力的影响。     

The ability of deferred tax to predict future tax

We examine the usefulness of tax allocation accounting (deferred tax) for predicting future tax paid and future tax expense. Deferred taxes increase the explanatory power (R²) of regression models where future taxes paid or future tax expense is the dependent variable. However, the mean out‐of‐sample forecast errors for tax paid (future tax expense) is 30 (45.5) percent. Deferred tax increases predictive ability on pooled data, but is inconsistent on a year‐by‐year basis. We examine three explanations for poor predictive ability: losses, tax changes and asset growth. We discuss the policy and practical implications of our findings.     

Leverage and Taxes: Evidence from the Real Estate Industry

Finance theory has long viewed corporate income taxes as a potentially important determinant of corporate financing decisions and capital structures. But finance academics have been unable to provide convincing empirical evidence of a material effect of taxes on corporate leverage, in part because of difficulties in constructing an effective proxy for marginal corporate tax rates, and hence for the tax benefits of debt, for large samples of individual companies. The authors address this by analyzing leverage decisions in an industry whose publicly traded entities are organized either as taxable corporations, or as real estate investment trusts (REITs) that effectively avoid entity level taxation. This enables them to measure the relative tax benefits of debt with greater precision while controlling for important nontax characteristics that affect debt usage. The tax hypothesis predicts that for real estate firms with similar asset portfolios, taxable firms should have more debt than their nontaxable counterparts. Both the nontaxable and the taxable real estate firms in our sample routinely have more than twice the leverage of industrial firms, which suggests that factors other than taxes are contributing to their use of debt. But among real estate firms, tax status appears to play a much weaker role. Taxable firms have significantly more leverage only after 2000, when restrictions on REITs were removed through new regulations that made their operations much more like those of taxable real estate firms. Our findings also depend on real estate characteristics—most notably, only residential real estate firms demonstrated differences that are consistent with the tax hypothesis. Taken together, the authors’ findings suggest that although taxes do seem to matter, their role is clearly secondary relative to factors such as the nature of the firm’s assets. A generous interpretation of our evidence puts the effect of taxes between one‐third and one‐half of that implied by prior research.     

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN CORPORATE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISCLOSURE LEVELS IN ANNUAL REPORTS: A META-ANALYSIS

Accounting researchers have investigated associations between corporate characteristics and disclosures in corporate annual reports since 1961. Findings have consistently shown corporate size and listing status to be significantly associated with disclosure levels, while mixed results have been reported for leverage, profitability, and audit firm size. The purpose of the present paper is to integrate prior disclosure studies and to identify the underlying factors that moderate the apparent variation in results. A meta-analysis of 29 studies confirms significant and positive relationships between disclosure levels and corporate size, listing status and leverage. No significant association is found between corporate profitability or size of audit firm, with aggregate disclosure levels. This study also found that in addition to sampling error, the results are moderated by differences in disclosure index construction, differences in definition of the explanatory variables, and differences in research settings.     

Tax Aggressiveness and Accounting Fraud

There are competing arguments and mixed prior evidence on whether firms that are aggressive in their financial reporting exhibit more or less tax aggressiveness. Our research contributes to resolving this issue by examining the association between aggressive tax reporting and the incidence of alleged accounting fraud. Relying on several proxies for tax aggressiveness to triangulate our evidence, we generally find that tax aggressive U.S. public firms are less likely to commit accounting fraud. However, we caution that our results are sensitive to how tax aggressiveness is measured. More specifically, four (two) of the five (three) proxies for firms’ effective tax rates (book‐tax differences) load positively (negatively) during the 1981–2001 period, implying that fraud firms are less tax aggressiveness. Our inferences persist when we isolate the 1995–2001 period in which accounting impropriety steeply rose and corporate tax compliance steeply fell. Moreover, we continue to find that tax aggressive firms are less apt to fraudulently manipulate their financial statements when we apply factor analysis to identify tax avoidance with a common factor extracted from the underlying proxies and match on propensity scores to ensure that the fraud and nonfraud samples have very similar nontax characteristics.     

Analysts’ pre-tax income forecasts and the tax expense anomaly

This paper examines whether analysts’ pre-tax income forecasts mitigate the tax expense anomaly documented by Thomas and Zhang (J Account Res 49:791–821, 2011). They find that seasonal changes in quarterly income tax expense are positively related to future returns after controlling for the earnings surprise and conclude that investors underreact to value-relevant information in tax expense. When analysts issue both earnings and pre-tax income forecasts, they implicitly provide a forecast of income tax expense. We posit that this implicit forecast helps investors recognize the persistence of current tax expense surprise for future earnings. Accordingly, we expect that mispricing of tax expense will be less severe for firms with earnings and pre-tax income forecasts. As expected, we find that the presence of pre-tax income forecasts significantly weakens the positive relation between tax expense surprise and future returns, consistent with analysts’ implicit forecasts of tax expense mitigating the tax expense anomaly.     

Taxes and Financial Constraints: Evidence from Linguistic Cues

Using a new measure of financial constraints based on firms’ qualitative disclosures, we find that financially constrained firms—firms that use more negative words in their annual reports—pursue more aggressive tax planning strategies as evidenced by: (1) higher current and future unrecognized tax benefits, (2) lower short‐ and long‐run current and future effective tax rates, (3) increase in tax haven usage for their material operations, and (4) higher proposed audit adjustments from the Internal Revenue Service. We exploit the unexpected closures of local banks as exogenous liquidity shocks to show that firms’ external financial constraints affect their tax avoidance strategies. Overall, the linguistic cues in firms’ qualitative disclosures provide incremental information beyond traditional accounting variables or commonly used effective tax rates to reveal and predict tax aggressiveness, both contemporaneously and in the future.     

煤炭行业上市公司资本结构影响因素的实证分析

以沪深两市29家煤炭行业上市公司为研究样本,采用因子分析和多元回归方法对煤炭行业上市公司资本结构的影响因素进行了实证研究,分析结果显示:资产流动性、成长性和盈利能力对资本结构的影响比较显著,企业规模、非债务税盾以及资产担保价值对上市公司资本结构的影响并不显著。并且成长性、非债务税盾、资产担保价值与公司的资本结构成正相关关系,其余变量则呈负相关关系。     

Market's perception of deferred tax accruals

This study investigates the value relevance and incremental information content of deferred tax accruals reported under the ‘income statement method’ (AASB 1020 Accounting for Income Taxes) over the period 2001–2004. Our findings suggest that deferred tax accruals are viewed as assets and liabilities. We document a positive relation between recognized deferred tax assets and firm value using the levels model, while the results from the returns model suggest that deferred tax liabilities reflect future tax payments. The balance of unrecognized deferred tax assets provides a negative signal to the market about future profitability, particularly for companies from the materials and energy sectors and loss‐makers.     

Why EVA Bonus Plans Failed—and How to Revive Them

Most companies rely heavily on earnings to measure their financial performance, but earnings growth has at least two important weaknesses as a proxy for investor wealth. Current earnings growth may come at the expense of future earnings through, say, shortsighted cutbacks in corporate investment, including R&D or advertising. But growth in earnings per share can also be achieved by “overinvesting”—that is, committing ever more capital to projects with expected rates of return that, although well below the cost of capital, exceed the after‐tax cost of debt. Stock compensation has been the conventional solution to the first problem because it's a discounted cash flow value that is assumed to discourage actions that sacrifice future earnings. Economic profit—in its most popular manifestation, EVA—has been the conventional solution to the second problem because it includes a capital charge that penalizes low‐return investment. But neither of these conventional solutions appears to work very well in practice. Stock compensation isn't tied to business unit performance, and often fails to motivate corporate managers who believe that meeting consensus earnings is more important than investing to maintain future earnings. EVA often doesn't work well because increases in current EVA often come with reduced expectations of future EVA improvement—and reductions in current EVA are often accompanied by increases in future growth values. Since EVA bonus plans reward current EVA increases without taking account of changes in expected future growth values, they have the potential to encourage margin improvement that comes at the expense of business growth and discourage positive‐NPV investments that, because of longer‐run payoffs, reduce current EVA. In this article, the author demonstrates the possibility of overcoming such short‐termism by developing an operating model of changes in future growth value that can be used to calibrate “dynamic” EVA improvement targets that more closely align EVA bonus plan payouts with investors’ excess returns. With the use of “dynamic” targets, margin improvements that come at the expense of business growth can be discouraged by raising EVA performance targets, while growth investments can be encouraged by the use of lower EVA targets.     

The Market Response to Beating After‐tax Earnings Targets Revisited using Analysts’ Pre‐tax Earnings Forecasts and Concurrent Tax Note Disclosures

We investigate whether the premium for achieving after‐tax earnings targets is informed by the availability of pre‐tax and after‐tax earnings forecasts. We find evidence the premium is discounted for firms achieving only after‐tax earnings forecasts compared with firms achieving both forecast targets. This is likely due to the uncertainty about future profitability and earnings quality created by failing to attain pre‐tax earnings targets. For firms achieving only pre‐tax earnings forecasts, no premium is documented. Taken together, our results indicate that while pre‐tax earnings forecasts may not move the market, they have an informational role in providing a context for assessing the achievement of after‐tax earnings targets. We also consider the usefulness of the tax note disclosures of deferred tax assets from carry‐forward losses for assessing the premium for achieving after‐tax earnings targets. Reflecting the duality of this tax deferral, we find evidence that recognition of these tax assets conveys information about lower earnings quality when recognition is likely to be opportunistic (in the case of firms achieving only after‐tax forecasts), and provides a signal of future profitability (in the case of firms achieving only pre‐tax forecasts).     

A Better Way to Measure Operating Performance (or Why the EVA Math Really Matters)

Most companies rely heavily on earnings to measure operating performance, but earnings growth has at least two important weaknesses as a proxy for investor wealth. Current earnings can come at the expense of future earnings through, for example, short‐sighted cutbacks in investment, including spending on R&D. But growth in EPS can also be achieved by investing more capital with projected rates of return that, although well below the cost of capital, are higher than the after‐tax cost of debt. Stock compensation has been the conventional solution to the first problem because it's a discounted cash flow value that is assumed to discourage actions that sacrifice future earnings. Economic profit—in its most popular manifestation, EVA—has been the conventional solution to the second problem with earnings because it includes a capital charge that penalizes low‐return investment. But neither of these conventional solutions appears to work very well in practice. Stock compensation isn't tied to business unit performance—and often fails to provide the intended incentives for the (many) corporate managers who believe that meeting current consensus earnings is more important than investing to maintain future earnings. EVA doesn't work well when new investments take time to become profitable because the higher capital charge comes before the related income. In this article, the author presents two new operating performance measures that are likely to work better than either earnings or EVA because they reflect the value that can be lost either through corporate underinvestment or overinvestment designed to increase current earnings. Both of these new measures are based on the math that ties EVA to discounted cash flow value, particularly its division of current corporate market values into two components: “current operations value” and “future growth value.” The key to the effectiveness of the new measures in explaining changes in company stock prices and market values is a statistical model of changes in future growth value that captures the expected effects of significant increases in current investment in R&D and advertising on future profits and value.     

Study of Effective Corporate Tax Rate and Its Influential Factors: Empirical Evidence from Emerging European Markets

This article examines the driving factors of the effective corporate tax rate (ECTR) for a sample of companies listed on five Eastern European stock exchanges (Romania, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and Slovenia), covering the period 2000–2016. The empirical research covers variables regarding firm characteristics (e.g., profitability, efficiency of assets, indebtedness, liquidity, and solvency), firm-level controls, auditing fees, and the statutory rate. The estimated panel data models provide support for a positive link between the ECTR and profitability, debt, capital and inventory intensity, firm size, and statutory rate, strengthening the validity of political cost theory. Further, the negative link between market capitalization and assets growth supports the idea of political power theory.     

Payout Policy Relevance and Accounting‐based Valuation

DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) (D&D) argue ‘payout policy is not irrelevant and investment is not the sole determinant of value, even in frictionless markets’. Consistent with this view, we argue that the concept of a perfect capital market in Miller and Modigliani (1961) (M&M) and Fama and Miller (1972) can be extended to allow for managerial moral hazard if managers are assumed not to participate in securities trading. An updated version of the M&M valuation model is presented and the possibility of managerial free cash flow (FCF) retention through operating expense manipulation and sub‐optimal investment policies is discussed. Our analysis supports D&D's argument that payout policy is relevant and indicates that value relevance of payout depends on the quality of earnings measurement and the optimality of investment policy. Following this, we develop a framework for analyzing valuation and informational roles of payout in accounting‐based valuation models and apply this framework to the Ohlson (1995) and Feltham and Ohlson (1996) models. This analysis shows how these models permit payout valuation relevance due to managerial FCF retention but not payout informational relevance. Finally, we consider how the Feltham and Ohlson (1996) model can be extended to incorporate time variation in expected profitability of capital investment caused by time variation in managerial FCF retention activities and show that this explicitly affects payout value relevance. We conclude that the development of models where payout plays an explicit valuation role due to issues of moral hazard is an important direction for future research.     

ESTIMATING THE TAX BENEFITS OF DEBT

The standard approach to valuing interest tax shields assumes that full tax benefits are realized on every dollar of interest deduction in every scenario. The approach presented in this paper takes account of the possibility that interest tax shields cannot be used in some scenarios, in part because of variations in the firm's profitability. Because of the dynamic nature of the tax code (e.g., tax-loss carrybacks and carryforwards), it is necessary to consider past and future taxable income when estimating today's effective marginal tax rate. The paper uses a series of numerical examples to show that (1) the incremental value of an extra dollar of interest deduction is equal to the marginal tax rate appropriate for that dollar ; and (2) a firm's effective marginal tax rate (and therefore the marginal benefit of incremental interest deductions) can actually decline as the firm takes on additional debt.
Based on marginal benefit functions for thousands of firms from 1980–1999, the author concludes that the tax benefits of debt averaged approximately 10% of firm value during the 1980s, while declining to around 8% in the 1990s. By taking maximum advantage of the interest tax shield, the average firm could have increased its value by approximately 15% over the 1980s and 1990s, suggesting that the consequences of being underlevered are significant. Surprisingly, many of the companies that appear best able to service debt (i.e., those with the lowest apparent costs of debt) use the least amount of debt, on average. Treasurers and CFOs should critically reevaluate their companies' debt policies and consider the benefits of additional leverage, even if taking on more debt causes their credit ratings to slip a notch.     

Foreign Exchange Risk,Hedging, and Tax-Motivated Outbound Income Shifting

Although outbound income shifting to low-tax jurisdictions provides tax savings, it is often accompanied by nontax costs. In this study, I examine whether foreign exchange (FX) risk constrains tax-motivated outbound income shifting by U.S. multinational corporations. My findings indicate that exposure to greater currency volatility is associated with less outbound income shifting, and this effect is stronger for firms with foreign affiliates using foreign functional currencies. I also investigate whether hedging facilitates outbound income shifting. Consistent with hedging lowering costs associated with exchange rate volatility, I find that U.S. firms that use more currency derivatives tend to shift more income to low-tax foreign jurisdictions. Overall, these findings suggest that FX risk is an important cost of outbound income shifting.