Prior literature predicts a positive relation between firms' expected pre-tax rates of return and investor-level capital gains tax rates. We show that this relation is more nuanced than suggested by prior literature and that in three circumstances the relation can actually be negative. The first circumstance is when a firm's systematic risk is very high. The second circumstance is when the market risk premium is very high. The third circumstance is when the risk-free rate of return is very low. The circumstances arise because, in addition to reducing investors' expected after-tax cash proceeds, capital gains taxes reduce the risk that investors associate with the expected after-tax cash proceeds.

Prior literature predicts a positive relation between firms' expected pre-tax rates of return and investor-level capital gains tax rates. We show that this relation is more nuanced than suggested by prior literature and that in three circumstances the relation can actually be negative. The first circumstance is when a firm's systematic risk is very high. The second circumstance is when the market risk premium is very high. The third circumstance is when the risk-free rate of return is very low. The circumstances arise because, in addition to reducing investors' expected after-tax cash proceeds, capital gains taxes reduce the risk that investors associate with the expected after-tax cash proceeds.

Evidence evaluation in accounting often involves both the assessment of evidence relevance and the combination of its relevance and source to assess overall strength. We decompose this strength-assessment judgment into its components—relevance assessment and source and relevance combination—and consider the effects of experience. Participants in our experiment assess the strength and relevance of tax authorities in relation to a client scenario. Contrary to prior research, we find that more-experienced participants exhibit greater use of analogical reasoning when evaluating tax-authority relevance than do less-experienced participants. We find a similar experience effect in the use of configural information processing to combine authority source and relevance, a judgment not previously considered in tax. The effects of experience are particularly important in the current environment as the tax function is a leading cause of material weaknesses and restatements under Sarbanes-Oxley and tax executives cite increasing difficulty in hiring and retaining qualified professionals. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors on request.

This study examines the sources of credit risk associated with asset securitizations and whether credit-rating agencies and the bond market differ in their assessment of this risk. Measuring credit risk using credit ratings, we find the securitizing firm's credit risk is positively related to the firm's retained interest in the securitized assets and unrelated to the portion of the securitized assets not retained by the firm. Measuring credit risk using bond spreads, we find the securitizing firm's credit risk is positively related to both the firm's retained interest in the assets and the portion of the securitized assets not retained by the firm. Additionally, our findings indicate the bond market does not distinguish between the retained and non-retained portions of the securitized assets when assessing the credit risk of the securitizing firm. These different assessments of sources of credit risk associated with asset securitizations provide insight into ongoing controversies surrounding the financial reporting for asset securitizations and the efficacy of credit ratings.

This study examines whether the adoption in 2003 of FASB Interpretation No. 46/R (FIN 46), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities—An Interpretation of ARB No. 51, changed the cost of capital for affected firms. Using comparative analysis on a broad sample of 11,719 firm-quarter observations for 1,389 firms during the period 1998 through 2005, we find evidence that FIN 46 significantly increased the cost of equity capital for firms with affected variable interest entities (VIEs), an increase of approximately 50 basis points relative to firms reporting no material effect from the standard. Further, firms consolidating these formerly off-balance sheet structures experienced the largest increase. Taken together, these results suggest that FIN 46 reduced the opportunity for firms to use off-balance sheet structures to artificially reduce their cost of capital, a matter of regulatory concern. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources.