We evaluate whether, and under what circumstances, corporate tax aggressiveness influences audit pricing. Using a compound measure of two long-run effective tax rates, we find that tax-aggressive firms pay higher fees for external audit services after controlling for factors related to earnings management. The fee premium increases with management’s uncertainty about the sustainability of tax positions if audited by tax authorities (i.e., disclosed tax reserves). Further, the provision of auditor-provided tax services may create knowledge spillovers that alleviate the fee premium for tax aggressiveness, unless tax uncertainty is high. Finally, an accounting firm’s industry expertise in auditing is associated with higher audit fees independent of tax aggressiveness, whereas industry expertise in taxation leads to a fee premium only for tax-aggressive clients. Overall, the evidence implies firms’ aggressive tax behavior, tax services provider, and auditor expertise interact to influence the pricing of audit engagements.

This study provides the first large‐sample evidence on the economic tax effects of special purpose entities (SPEs). These increasingly common organizational structures facilitate corporate tax savings by enabling sponsor firms to increase tax‐advantaged activities and/or enhance their tax efficiency (i.e., relative tax savings of a given activity). Using path analysis, we find that SPEs facilitate greater tax avoidance such that an economically large amount of cash tax savings from research and development (R&D), depreciable assets, net operating loss carryforwards, intangible assets, foreign operations, and tax havens occur in conjunction with SPE use. We estimate that SPEs help generate over $330 billion of incremental cash tax savings, or roughly 6 percent of total U.S. federal corporate income tax collections during the sample period. Interaction analyses reveal that SPEs enhance the tax efficiency of intangibles and R&D by 61.5 percent to 87.5 percent. Overall, these findings provide economic insight into complex organizational structures supporting corporate tax avoidance.

We examine shareholders' perceptions about how external tax advisors contribute to corporate tax planning. As residual claimants of corporate tax planning, shareholders benefit from lower corporate taxes, but also bear the financial and reputational costs of subsequent tax enforcement. Despite the influential advisory role of external tax advisors in corporate tax planning, existing research on how shareholders perceive this role is limited. Using event study methods and exploiting the heightened regulation of tax advice through the covered opinion rules as a setting, we observe average and cross‐sectional stock returns consistent with shareholders perceiving external tax advisors as contributing unfavorably to tax planning by promoting excessively risky strategies. We further find that risky and overall tax planning declined across firms after the enactment of the rules, consistent with shareholders' perceptions about tax advisors' contributions to firms' tax planning. Overall, our findings contribute to research on shareholder perceptions and valuation of tax planning, and have important implications for practice, where regulatory oversight of external tax advisors remains a significant concern.