ABSTRACT Research on the determinants of tax avoidance have relied on tests using GAAP and cash effective tax rates (ETRs) and total and permanent book‐tax differences. Two new proxies have emerged that overcome documented limitations of these proxies: one, developed by Henry and Sansing (2018), allows for more meaningful interpretation of results estimated in samples that include loss observations. The other, reserves for unrecognized tax benefits (UTB), provides new data on tax uncertainty. We offer empirical evidence on how well tests using these new proxies perform relative to those extensively used in prior research. The paper finds that tests using the proxy developed by Henry and Sansing (2018) have lower power relative to those using other proxies across all samples, including a sample that includes loss observations. In contrast, when firms accrue reserves for uncertain tax avoidance, tests using the current‐year addition to the UTB have the highest power across all proxies, samples, and levels of reserves. In the absence of reserves, tests using the GAAP ETR best detect uncertain tax avoidance, on average. This study contributes to the literature by using a controlled environment to provide the first large‐scale empirical evidence on how the power of tests varies with the use of relatively new proxies, the inclusion of loss observations, and the advent of FIN 48.

Global tax enforcement policies have received increased attention since the financial crisis, with much stated focus on curbing perceived harmful tax practices of multinational corporations. Yet there is a dearth of evidence on possible differential effects of home‐country tax enforcement on multinationals. We take a step toward filling this void in the tax policy discussion by examining whether there is a differential relation between changes in home‐country enforcement and the tax avoidance of domestic versus multinational corporations. Using OECD data on 50 countries from 2005 to 2019, we find increases in home‐country enforcement are associated with lower levels of tax avoidance for domestic firms than for multinational corporations. Using a subset of firms from the Bureau van Dijk database, we find that multinationals avoid more tax in foreign countries when home‐country enforcement increases. Results are stronger for multinationals with a higher proportion of subsidiaries in low‐tax countries and when enforcement spending is low. These findings have implications for policy‐makers and highlight the importance of coordinated enforcement efforts across jurisdictions—such as the recently proposed global minimum tax—to successfully curb multinationals' worldwide tax avoidance.

ABSTRACT As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the US Congress repealed a long‐standing exception that allowed companies to deduct executives' qualified performance‐based compensation in excess of $1 million. The purpose of this study is to examine whether Congress achieved its stated objective of reversing a shift in executive compensation away from cash compensation and toward performance pay, which Congress believed led executives to focus on short‐term results rather than the long‐term success of the company. Across a battery of tests, including a difference‐in‐differences design that exploits the staggered time‐series implementation of the deduction limit, we find evidence compatible with the new deduction limit having no effect on executives' salary, performance pay or total compensation, inconsistent with Congressional intent. Our results suggest that taxes are not a first‐order effect of executive pay and that tax regulation could be relatively ineffective at curbing executive compensation.

We interview public company tax executives to provide new evidence on how corporate taxpayers experience and navigate the income tax audit process. Interviewees describe being “targeted” by “tax police” and having to “defend” their positions. Thus, we adopt a structural metaphor of tax audits as police investigations and use a framework from the policing literature to explain what influences taxpayers' perceptions of fairness during audits. Perceptions of fairness are important as targets of investigations are more likely to cooperate and accept outcomes when they perceive policing processes as fair. Tax executives aim to obtain fair and consistent treatment by compiling documentation, consulting with peers and external advisors, and educating tax agents. Audits are adversarial, however, and taxpayers also act strategically to secure favorable outcomes and appeal or litigate when they believe outcomes are unfair. Interviewees note variation in the extent to which tax authorities create frameworks that facilitate fair audit processes and whether tax agents implement these frameworks. Our study offers new insights into the tax audit process from corporate taxpayers' perspectives. First, public company taxpayers view tax audits as redundant to financial statement audits of their tax positions. Thus, tax audits may have limited scope to deter tax noncompliance. Second, tax executives are not passive actors; they take deliberate actions to shape audit outcomes. Third, audits are less efficient for everyone when taxpayers perceive them as procedurally unfair. Investments by tax authorities that increase perceptions of fairness may enhance audit efficiency by increasing taxpayers' cooperation and acceptance of outcomes.

ABSTRACT Many studies use GAAP effective tax rates (ETRs) as a proxy for tax avoidance and assume that very low (high) ETRs represent the greatest (least) tax avoidance, yet ETRs can be affected by items unrelated to tax avoidance. Despite awareness of the potential limitations of ETRs versus other factors as a measure of tax avoidance, the literature lacks consistent evidence on the extent to which ETRs capture tax avoidance. We take a step toward filling this void using income tax footnote disclosures from 2008 through 2016 to investigate how well ETRs versus other factors capture cross‐sectional differences in tax avoidance. We document that ETRs below 5% and above 40% are significantly influenced by items largely unrelated to tax avoidance, such as valuation allowances and goodwill impairments. Truncating ETRs at zero and one, controlling for standard determinants of tax avoidance, and using industry‐size‐adjusted ETRs or multiyear GAAP ETRs do not eliminate the clustering of factors largely unrelated to tax avoidance in the tails of the ETR distribution. Cash ETRs attenuate but do not eliminate this clustering. Researchers can use ETR rate reconciliation data to construct an adjusted ETR that removes the influence of factors largely unrelated to tax avoidance. Our findings inform researchers about factors largely unrelated to tax avoidance that drive significant deviations in ETRs from the statutory tax rate. This is of increasing importance as the number of studies examining the consequences of very high and very low ETRs grows.

ABSTRACT We propose that auditor-provided tax services (tax NAS) improve internal control quality by accelerating audit firm awareness of transactions material to the financial statements. Using data from 2004 to 2012, we find robust evidence that companies purchasing tax NAS are significantly less likely to disclose a material weakness and that this result is not due to auditor independence impairment. A one-standard-deviation increase in tax NAS is associated with approximately a 13 percent decrease in the rate of material weaknesses relative to the base rate. These results are robust to tests addressing endogeneity concerns. Additional cross-sectional analyses reveal expected increased effects of tax NAS on internal control quality (1) after significant operational changes that require changes to the internal control structure, and (2) earlier in the relationship with the financial statement audit firm, when there are fewer established lines of communication between the audit team and client. This paper contributes to the knowledge spillover literature by identifying a mechanism through which tax NAS improve overall financial reporting quality.

ABSTRACT Managers express growing concern over media coverage of corporate taxes, yet no large-sample empirical study examines this phenomenon. As a first step to fill this void, we identify factors associated with the likelihood and negative tone of media tax coverage and examine firms' tax avoidance behavior following media tax coverage. We find the likelihood of media tax coverage is greater for firms with GAAP effective tax rates below the top U.S. statutory rate of 35 percent and for firms with greater visibility. The degree of negative tone is increasing in cash tax avoidance and firm size. We also find evidence of more frequent and more negative tax coverage during economic recessions. We find no evidence that firms reduce their tax avoidance following media coverage. Although our analyses are subject to limitations, our results suggest the media may not have the same influence over corporate tax policy as other external stakeholders. JEL Classifications: H25; H26; H20; M41; G39. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources identified in the paper.