To commemorate the 100th anniversary of The Accounting Review, I was asked to provide my forecast of the future of tax research in accounting. In sum, my opinion is that the future is bright and full of opportunities for tax scholars. Governments are altering corporate income tax laws in fundamental ways and questions about how these changes affect investment, investment location, income shifting, corporate capital structure, and financial reporting will be very important aspects to study. New and newly used taxes, such as tariffs and endowment taxes, will allow for novel paths of inquiry and accountants should contribute. The use of AI by tax authorities and taxpayers could alter both tax enforcement and tax planning. The increasing access to administrative data, the use of field experiments and field studies, and employing survey methods to obtain data should expand the settings available to study and improve identification.

There are past and proposed tax law changes that contain provisions that affect financial reporting. These include calls for book-tax conformity, proposals to increase the links between financial accounting and taxable incomes, and actions by Congress that make direct alterations to U.S. GAAP. I submit that these tax law changes potentially threaten financial reporting quality. I discuss my concerns about why such provisions have not attracted attention from accountants to the extent they should and make a case for more awareness and more research going forward.

This paper investigates whether investor-level taxes affect corporate payout policy decisions. We predict and find a surge of special dividends in the final months of 2010 and 2012, immediately before individual-level dividend tax rates were expected to increase. We also find evidence that immediately before the expected tax increases, firms altered the timing of their regular dividend payments by shifting what would normally be January regular dividend payments into the preceding December. To our knowledge this is the first evidence in the literature about changes in the timing of regular dividend payments in response to tax law changes. For both actions (specials and shifting), we find that it was more likely for a firm to respond to individual-level tax rates if insiders owned a relatively large amount of the firm. Overall, our paper provides evidence that managers consider individual-level taxes in making corporate payout decisions.

This paper investigates whether the U.S. repatriation tax for U.S. multinational corporations affects foreign investment. Our results show that the locked-out cash due to repatriation tax costs is associated with a higher likelihood of foreign (but not domestic) acquisitions. We also find a negative association between tax-induced foreign cash holdings and the market reaction to foreign deals. This result suggests that the investment activity of firms with high repatriation tax costs is viewed by the market as less value-enhancing than that of firms with low tax costs, consistent with foreign investment of firms with high repatriation tax costs possibly reflecting agency-driven behavior.

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.

Despite decades of research on how, why, and when companies manage earnings, there is a paucity of evidence about the geographic location of earnings management within multinational firms. In this study, we examine where companies manage earnings using a sample of 2,067 U.S. multinational firms from 1994 to 2009. We predict and find that firms with extensive foreign operations in weak rule of law countries have more foreign earnings management than companies with subsidiaries in locations where the rule of law is strong. We also find some evidence that profitable firms with extensive tax haven subsidiaries manage earnings more than other firms and that the earnings management is concentrated in foreign income. Apart from these results, we find that most earnings management takes place in domestic income, not foreign income.

This paper develops a unified framework to synthesize the growing stream of positive research on the role of individual decision makers in shaping observed accounting phenomena. This line of research recognizes two central ideas in behavioral economics. First, individual behavior depends not only on economic incentives and accessible information but also on individual preferences, abilities, experiences, and other characteristics. Second, the constraints that structure human interactions encompass both formal institutions (e.g., rules, laws, constitutions) and informal institutions (e.g., norms, conventions, rituals). Our review covers a broad set of individuals who are of interest in accounting research: managers, directors, audit partners, analysts, standard setters, politicians, judges, journalists, loan officers, financial advisors, and investors. We aim to understand the systematic effects of individual characteristics on a wide spectrum of accounting phenomena, including financial reporting, disclosure, tax planning, auditing, and corporate social responsibility. We highlight the importance of personal characteristics not only for an individual's own behavior but also for others' perceptions. Our review mainly focuses on archival research in accounting and provides some thoughts about opportunities for archival empiricists going forward. We also, when feasible, highlight opportunities for future field, survey, and experimental research. A central takeaway from our review is that individual‐level factors significantly improve our ability to explain and predict accounting phenomena beyond firm‐, industry‐, and market‐level factors.

We survey companies and find that many use incorrect tax rate inputs into important corporate decisions. Specifically, many companies use an average tax rate (the GAAP effective tax rate, ETR) to evaluate incremental decisions, rather than using the theoretically correct marginal tax rate. We find evidence consistent with behavioral biases (heuristics, salience) and managers' educational backgrounds affecting these choices. We estimate the economic consequences of using the theoretically incorrect tax rate and find that using the ETR for capital structure decisions leads to suboptimal leverage choices and using the ETR in investment decisions makes firms less responsive to investment opportunities.

We compare executive equity incentives of firms accused of accounting fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the period 1996–2003 with two samples of firms not accused of fraud. We measure equity incentives in a variety of ways and employ a battery of empirical tests. We find no consistent evidence that executive equity incentives are associated with fraud. These results stand in contrast to assertions by policy makers that incentives from stock-based compensation and the resulting equity holdings increase the likelihood of accounting fraud.

We hypothesize that prior evidence of target shareholder capital gains tax liabilities affecting acquisition features is driven by the tax liabilities of the target firm CEO. To test this, we estimate CEOs' capital gains tax liabilities for a large sample of acquisitions and examine the effects of such liabilities on acquisition outcomes. Results indicate that the previously documented positive relations between shareholder-level capital gains tax rates and (1) the likelihood of a nontaxable acquisition (Ayers, Lefanowicz, and Robinson 2004), and (2) acquisition premiums (Ayers, Lefanowicz, and Robinson 2003) are largely driven by CEO tax effects. We also find evidence consistent with (1) CEOs' tax incentives leading to potential agency conflicts under certain conditions, and (2) acquisition structure or premium being adjusted in response to CEOs' taxes depending on the alternatives available to the acquirer. Our study contributes to our understanding of what and whose taxes affect acquisition structure and value.