Strategic Subsidiary Disclosure

Although subsidiary disclosures in firms’ filings with the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC; Exhibit 21) represent the most granular required public disclosure of a firm's geographic footprint, little is understood about the quality of the disclosure, and anecdotal evidence suggests firms may not fully comply with the disclosure requirements. We use data provided by multinational firms to the Internal Revenue Service regarding their foreign subsidiary locations to explore the accuracy of public subsidiary disclosures on Exhibit 21 of Form 10-K per SEC rules. The overall incidence of nondisclosure is low, suggesting that most firms comply with Exhibit 21 disclosure rules, and that for most applications, Exhibit 21 disclosures provide a reasonable proxy for locations of significant subsidiaries. Nevertheless, there is some evidence of nondisclosure, particularly when subsidiaries are in tax havens, when the firm is more highly scrutinized in the media, or when the firm has other characteristics consistent with low-quality disclosures such as SEC comment letters.     

Corporate Restructurings: A Comparison of Equity Carve-outs and Spin-offs

In this paper we examine divisive corporate restructurings in which a firm takes a subsidiary public. Using a sample of 64 spin-off and 76 carve-out firms during 1991–1997, we find firms carve-out subsidiaries with higher market demand. These subsidiaries are more frequently in related industries than spin-offs. The carve-out firms are also more likely to be cash constrained and have lower marginal tax rates, but are not likely to be considering financial reporting synergies when structuring the divestiture. These results provide evidence that factors impacting the divestiture choice related to Master Limited partnerships, as studied previously, differ when divesting a corporate subsidiary.     

Exploring the role Delaware plays as a domestic tax haven

We examine whether Delaware is a domestic tax haven. We find that taxes play an economically important role in determining whether U.S. firms locate subsidiaries in Delaware and that a Delaware-based state tax avoidance strategy lowers state effective tax rates by between 0.7 and 1.1 percentage points, on average. The tax savings represent a 15–24% decrease in the state income tax burden and translate to an increase in net income of 1.04–1.47%. However, we find that the tax benefits of Delaware tax strategies are diminishing over time in response to initiatives by state governments to limit multistate tax avoidance.     

Strategic reaction and tax avoidance: Evidence from the effect of large IPOs on peers

We examine whether and how industry peers use tax avoidance as a strategic mechanism to maintain their relative competitive positions. We exploit a unique setting where a relatively large private firm obtains capital, visibility, and creditability by going public (i.e., an IPO), imposing significant competitive pressure on its industry peers. We find that peer firms increase tax avoidance after large IPOs. Further analysis shows that the increase of tax avoidance is driven by firms with high growth needs and firms with high operating uncertainty, suggesting that tax aggressiveness is aligned with other strategic risk-taking changes to improve industry competitiveness. We rule out two alternative explanations: 1) existing peers use relative product market power to hedge against tax risk and engage in tax avoidance; 2) peers mimic the tax avoidance behavior of IPO firms. The main finding is supported by the difference-in-differences test with coarsened exact matching and a battery of robustness tests, including alternative measures and alternative large IPO selection criteria.     

The effect of tax avoidance crackdown on corporate innovation

To constrain the use of intangible assets in tax-motivated state income shifting, many U.S. state governments adopted addback statutes. Addback statutes reduce the tax benefits that firms can gain from creating intangible assets such as patents. Using a sample of U.S. public firms, we examine the effect of addback statutes on corporate innovation behavior. First, the adoption of addback statutes leads to a 4.77 percentage point decrease in the number of patents and a 5.12 percentage point decrease in the number of patent citations. Second, the “disappearing patents” resulting from addback statutes have significant economic value. Third, after a state adopts an addback statute, a firm with material subsidiaries in that state assigns fewer patents to subsidiaries in zero-tax states, whereas the number of patents assigned to the other states does not change. Overall, our findings suggest that addback statutes impede corporate innovation.     

Customer–supplier relationships and corporate tax avoidance

We investigate whether firms in close customer–supplier relationships are better able to identify and implement tax avoidance strategies via supply chains. Consistent with our prediction, we find that both principal customers and their dependent suppliers avoid more taxes than other firms. Further analysis suggests that principal customers and dependent suppliers likely engage in tax strategies involving shifting profits to tax haven subsidiaries. Moreover, tax benefits appear to explain both principal customer firms’ and dependent supplier firms’ organizational decisions. Overall, our study provides evidence of the importance of tax avoidance as a source of gains from these relationships.     

Director and officer liability and corporate tax avoidance

We use the unique nature of the director and officer liability protection law applicable to Nevada incorporated firms to study how liability protection is related to corporate tax avoidance. We find that firms incorporated in Nevada avoid 32% more federal corporate tax as a fraction of total assets than firms incorporated in Delaware, and 40% more than firms incorporated in other states. Nevada-incorporated firms have a 15% lower cash effective tax rate and an 8% lower GAAP ETR. The results are robust to various specifications including instrumental variable and matching approaches. Greater tax avoidance is also associated with lower payouts to shareholders for Nevada-incorporated firms. The findings are consistent with theories about the complementarity of managerial diversion and tax avoidance for firms with poor monitoring, and they demonstrate how increases in liability protection lead to the unintended consequence of greater firm tax avoidance.     

Valuation implications of socially responsible tax avoidance: Evidence from the electricity industry

Prior literature suggests that firms may bear reputational costs associated with corporate tax avoidance, which could in turn reduce the net present value of firms’ tax planning strategies. However, these studies do not consider the fact that firms may have opportunities to avoid tax in socially responsible ways. We investigate the equity valuation implications of one form of socially responsible tax avoidance: claiming the renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC). We predict and find that investors more positively value tax savings generated from PTCs compared to other forms of corporate tax avoidance, consistent with the notion that socially responsible tax avoidance should not subject firms to reputational costs. Additionally, consistent with the role that CSR can play in enhancing a firm’s reputational capital, we find evidence of a spillover effect in which investors more positively value other sources of tax avoidance to the extent the firm also reduces its taxes in a socially responsible way. Our results demonstrate the importance for managers to consider socially responsible tax avoidance as a component of a firm’s tax planning portfolio and for policymakers to recognize the appeal of socially responsible tax strategies as the reputational consequences of tax avoidance become more prominent.     

Stock liquidity and corporate tax avoidance

We show that firms with higher stock liquidity engage less in extreme (i.e., overly aggressive or overly conservative) tax avoidance. The effect of stock liquidity on tax avoidance is economically meaningful and robust across alternative measures of tax avoidance and stock liquidity. The findings also hold after controlling for potential endogenous effects. We further document that the effect of stock liquidity on tax avoidance is amplified for firms with high proportions of activist shareholders and attenuated for firms with high levels of stock price informativeness. Overall, our findings suggest that stock liquidity mitigates extreme tax avoidance by enhancing shareholders’ monitoring over firm management.

     

The Capital Structure of Large Firms and the Use of Dutch Financing Entities

Large firms may issue debt securities to obtain external financing or set up lowly‐taxed affiliates for internal debt‐shifting purposes. In addition, they may channel interest payments through Dutch special purpose entities (SPEs) to avoid withholding taxes, a widely‐used arbitrage strategy. Analysing the capital structure of large EU‐based multinationals, this paper provides evidence that the use of Dutch‐issuing SPEs is associated with higher debt financing relative to equity. Furthermore, it shows that EU subsidiaries of larger firms are more leveraged and that the use of Dutch on‐lending SPEs is also associated with higher subsidiary leverage. Thus, the paper provides evidence that Dutch SPEs facilitate higher external debt financing as well as internal debt shifting. The findings indicate that withholding taxes on interest payments to entities outside the EU, determined by individual EU member states, are not very effective. The national tax systems of EU countries such as the Netherlands, which does not impose interest withholding tax, allow large firms to avoid those taxes.     

Does tax avoidance increase or decrease when tax enforcement is stronger? Evidence using CSR heterogeneity perspective

Prior literature has reported mixed results on whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities are associated with more or less tax avoidance. These past results may be attributed to a failure to control for endogeneity between tax avoidance and CSR. We utilize an exogenous increase in tax enforcement to investigate how a heightened level of scrutiny by authorities affects tax avoidance by firms adopting CSR policies (CSR firms) compared to non-CSR firms. If stronger enforcement leads to greater tax compliance, we expect to observe a decline in tax avoidance measures in all firms. As expected, tax avoidance has decreased in non-CSR firms in response to this exogenous change, but surprisingly, in CSR firms it has increased. The results are supported by theories such as the licensing effect and organized hypocrisy. We contribute to the literature by using an exogenous shock to tax enforcement to shed light on whether CSR firms act in a socially responsible manner in their tax reporting. Moreover, we provide new empirical evidence relevant to the theory of organized hypocrisy, whereby there are notable inconsistencies between the actions that corporations take to bolster their public image and self-serving practices.     

IRS Attention

We study how public and private disclosure requirements interact to influence both tax regulator enforcement and firm disclosure. To capture IRS enforcement activities, we introduce a novel data set of IRS acquisition of firms’ public financial disclosures, which we label IRS attention. We examine the implementation of two new disclosure requirements that potentially alter IRS attention: FIN 48, which increased public tax disclosure requirements, and Schedule UTP, which increased private tax disclosure. We find that IRS attention increased following FIN 48 but subsequently decreased following Schedule UTP, consistent with public and private disclosure interacting to influence tax enforcement. We next examine how private tax disclosure requirements under Schedule UTP affected firms’ public disclosure responses. We find that, following Schedule UTP, firms significantly increased the quantity and altered the content of their tax‐related disclosures, consistent with lower tax‐related proprietary costs of disclosure. Our results suggest that changes in SEC disclosure requirements altered the IRS's behavior with regard to public information acquisition, and, relatedly, changes in IRS private disclosure requirements appear to change firms’ public disclosure behavior.     

Does Social Capital Matter in Corporate Decisions? Evidence from Corporate Tax Avoidance

We investigate whether the levels of social capital in U.S. counties, as captured by strength of civic norms and density of social networks in the counties, are systematically related to tax avoidance activities of corporations with headquarters located in the counties. We find strong negative associations between social capital and corporate tax avoidance, as captured by effective tax rates and book‐tax differences. These results are incremental to the effects of local religiosity and firm culture toward socially irresponsible activities. They are robust to using organ donation as an alternative social capital proxy and fixed effect regressions. They extend to aggressive tax avoidance practices. Additionally, we provide corroborating evidence using firms with headquarters relocation that changes the exposure to social capital. We conclude that social capital surrounding corporate headquarters provides environmental influences constraining corporate tax avoidance.     

Earnings,institutional investors,tax avoidance,and firm value: Evidence from Taiwan

This study examines the valuation of earnings from China and Taiwan by foreign and domestic institutional investors across a sample of Taiwanese electronics firms. We further compare the valuation of firm earnings reported in tax havens and non-tax havens, and whether these firms have changed tax avoidance activities since 2004 when the Taiwanese government enacted stricter auditing of transfer pricing regulation.Our findings show that both operating income from the home country and investment income are positively associated with firm value. Operating income from China, however, is not significantly related to firm value when institutional ownership of the firm exceeds fifty percent. This result indicates that operating income is valued differently, depending on the location from which the income was generated. Non-operating income enhances firm value regardless of the revenue source. We also report that foreign institutional investors favor operating income from domestic and investment sources over earnings generated from non-domestic sources and other non-operating income. Furthermore, our results suggest that firms rearrange reported profits from subsidiaries located in tax havens to affiliates in other countries following the transfer pricing audit guide Taiwan implemented in 2004. Results also indicate firms may have been shifting profits to other low-tax-rate countries, or to countries which do not require firms to pay taxes, even if they are not doing business in that country.     

When dedicated investors are distracted: The effect of institutional monitoring on corporate tax avoidance

This study investigates whether loosened monitoring from institutional investors affects firm tax planning decisions. We take advantage of shocks to unrelated parts of institutional investors’ portfolios and examine how plausibly exogenous changes in monitoring from institutional investors influence the level of firm tax avoidance. We find that investee firms significantly increase their temporary tax avoidance when there are temporary reductions in the attention of their dedicated institutional investors. Cross-sectional tests show that the tax impact of reduced dedicated investor attention and monitoring intensity is more pronounced when a firm’s information environment is less transparent and when a firm is subject to weaker internal governance. Our findings are robust to alternative research designs.     

Subsidiary debt,capital structure and internal capital markets

I study external debt issued by operating subsidiaries of diversified firms. Consistent with Kahn and Winton's [2004. Moral hazard and optimal subsidiary structure for financial institutions. Journal of Finance 59, 2537–2575] model, where subsidiary debt mitigates asset substitution, I find firms are more likely to use subsidiary debt when their divisions vary more in risk. Consistent with subsidiary debt mitigating the free cash flow problem, I find that subsidiaries are more likely to have their own external debt when they have fewer growth options and higher cash flow than the rest of the firm. Finally, I find that subsidiary debt mitigates the “corporate socialism” and “poaching” problems modeled in theories of internal capital markets.     

The “home bias” of corporate subsidiary locations

Analyzing hand-collected data on the corporate subsidiary locations of all publicly listed firms in China, we find that “hometown firms,” firms headquartered in the hometown of the key political leaders of the province, set up more subsidiaries in their home provinces. This effect is stronger for hometown firms that are non-state owned or without political connections, and more prominent in a political turnover year and the previous year. After a hometown firm sets up more subsidiaries in a key political leader's home province, the firm will enjoy more preferential government policies such as those related to subsidies and taxes. We find evidence consistent with the positive externalities of these subsidiaries for other firms in the cities where they reside, i.e., local firms. The number of these subsidiaries is also positively associated with the local employment rate. Various causality tests and robustness checks confirm the validity of our results. Our results provide some of the first evidence on the importance of corporate subsidiary locations, showing political geography significantly influences corporate geography.     

Sharing Risk with the Government: How Taxes Affect Corporate Risk Taking

Using 113 staggered changes in corporate income tax rates across U.S. states, we provide evidence on how taxes affect corporate risk‐taking decisions. Higher taxes reduce expected profits more for risky projects than for safe ones, as the government shares in a firm's upside but not in its downside. Consistent with this prediction, we find that risk taking is sensitive to taxes, albeit asymmetrically: the average firm reduces risk in response to a tax increase (primarily by changing its operating cycle and reducing R&D risk) but does not respond to a tax cut. We trace the asymmetry back to constraints on risk taking imposed by creditors. Finally, tax loss‐offset rules moderate firms’ sensitivity to taxes by allowing firms to partly share downside risk with the government.     

Organizational capital,corporate tax avoidance,and firm value

We show that firms with higher levels of organizational capital (OC) exhibit higher levels of tax avoidance and that shareholders view tax avoidance of high OC firms as value-enhancing. We also show that the OC-tax avoidance relation mainly manifests in firms with good internal governance and information environment and in firms that face tight financial constraints. In addition, we document that tax avoidance by high OC firms increases future cash flow and that high OC firms are more likely to invest in tax haven subsidiaries. Overall, our evidence suggests that OC enhances firms' tax efficiency.     

The taxman cometh: Does tax uncertainty affect corporate cash holdings?

We examine whether firms hold more cash in the face of tax uncertainty. Because of gray areas in the tax law and aggressive tax avoidance, the total amount of tax that a firm will pay is uncertain at the time it files its returns. The tax authorities can challenge and disallow the firm’s tax positions, demanding additional cash tax payments. We hypothesize that firms facing greater tax uncertainty hold cash to satisfy these potential future demands. We find that both domestic firms and multinational firms hold larger cash balances when subject to greater tax uncertainty. In terms of economic significance, we find that the effect of tax uncertainty on cash holdings is comparable to that of repatriation taxes. Our evidence adds to knowledge about the real effects of tax avoidance and provides a tax-based precautionary explanation for why there is such wide variation in cash holdings across firms.