We hypothesize that managers use their hierarchical role as reviewers of accounting judgments and estimates to manage earnings, which we call indirect earnings management (IEM). Across a series of experiments using highly experienced financial executives as participants, we provide evidence that IEM (1) is likely used by managers to achieve current and future earnings targets, (2) reduces both cognitive dissonance associated with managing earnings and the extent to which managers think that their behaviors constitute earnings management, and (3) is more likely to be used when corporate governance is strong than when corporate governance is weak. The results of this study suggest new directions for future research on earnings management and highlight the important role of the hierarchical structure of the accounting function in efforts to understand how earnings are managed.

Accounting rules require that certain R&D expenditures be capitalized, but academic research often states that all R&D expenditures must be immediately expensed. An accurate understanding of actual R&D accounting practices is critical because that understanding influences research questions and design choices. To examine the competing R&D accounting perspectives, we survey 184 experienced financial officers. Our survey reveals that R&D capitalization is common and extensive in practice. Over 90% of respondents indicate that their firm capitalizes at least some R&D expenditures, and our evidence shows that about 22% of annual R&D expenditures are capitalized. When facing an earnings shortfall, respondents indicate that firms are often willing to cut R&D expense. However, respondents also indicate an unwillingness to cut types of R&D expenses that cause long‐term harm—for example, laying off scientists or delaying the execution of trials—and they often redirect the freed‐up R&D resources to R&D expenditures that are capitalized. Using archival data, we also corroborate our survey finding about the pervasiveness of capitalized R&D, and we demonstrate its empirical implications. Our study helps to align the characterization of R&D accounting rules in the academic literature with the authoritative professional literature and provides a more nuanced understanding of firms’ R&D response to an earnings shortfall.

Individuals who have their tax returns professionally prepared often overpay estimated income taxes, effectively giving the government an interest‐free loan. To understand why tax professionals may place their clients in positive prepayment positions, we draw on mental accounting theory. Mental accounting theory suggests that by placing taxpayers in positive prepayment positions, tax professionals induce a favorable mental representation of tax return preparation fees, perhaps allowing them to collect larger fractions of billable time and costs incurred on taxpayers' behalves. Thus, we hypothesize that tax return preparation fees are higher for taxpayers in positive prepayment positions than for taxpayers in negative prepayment positions. Regression results using tax return data for 68,736 taxpayers provide strong support for this hypothesis. To more fully understand the general nature of the relationship between taxpayers' prepayment positions and tax return preparation fees, we adapt the prospect theory value function to the tax domain and formulate three additional hypotheses. Consistent with theory, regression results indicate that the relation between taxpayers' prepayment positions and tax return preparation fees is (1) positive, (2) stronger for taxpayers who receive refunds that are less than fees than it is for taxpayers who receive refunds that are greater than fees, and (3) stronger for taxpayers in negative prepayment positions than for taxpayers in positive prepayment positions.

Recent literature finds that firms led by female CEOs are more likely to be targeted by activist shareholders and that female CEOs are more likely to cooperate with activist shareholders' requests. Our study complements this literature by using two controlled experiments and a series of semi‐structured interviews with CEOs and CFOs to investigate how a CEO's response to shareholder activism influences investors' reactions and whether these reactions differ depending on the gender of the CEO or on how their response is explained. In the first experiment, we find that investors evaluate a firm as less attractive when a female CEO uses an uncooperative response rather than a cooperative response to shareholder activism, absent any explanation for the CEO's response. Conversely, investors evaluate a firm as less attractive when a male CEO uses a cooperative response rather than an uncooperative response. In the second experiment, where there is an added explanation for the CEO response, we find that investors react more positively to a female CEO's uncooperative response when the explanation is more communal (vs. agentic). Our interviews with CEOs and CFOs provide insights into how the gender of firms' leadership may play a role when activist shareholders target firms. Our results collectively suggest that investors rely on gender stereotypes when evaluating the responses of male and female executives to shareholder activism and that these evaluations affect their investment judgments. Our results also suggest a potential alternative explanation for the finding that female CEOs are more likely to cooperate with activist shareholders than are male CEOs. Rather than inherent differences in the management styles of male and female CEOs, responses to activist shareholders may be driven, at least in part, by managers anticipating that they will be penalized by investors for deviating from gender‐stereotypical behavior.

Evidence reveals that managers exercise discretion over budget estimates, but little is known about whether revenues or expenses are more susceptible to budget discretion. Drawing upon regulatory focus theory, we predict a pattern of budget discretion that has not previously been identified. To test our theory, we conduct a series of experiments where managers face a goal to either minimize the performance metric to avoid missing the target (minimal budget goal) or maximize the performance metric to achieve a desired outcome (maximal budget goal). When managers face a minimal budget goal, they are more likely to make self-interested budget estimates for uncertain expenses than monetarily equivalent uncertain revenues. Conversely, when managers face a maximal budget goal, they are more likely to make self-interested budget estimates for uncertain revenues than monetarily equivalent uncertain expenses. Thus, managers prefer acts of inclusion over acts of exclusion when pursuing their budget goals.

Contracting between tax entities and tax professionals occurs millions of times every year, yet little is known about the nature of these economic interactions. This study examines the effect of commonly occurring contextual factors on tax professionals’ billing decisions for tax research. These contextual factors are unrelated to the tax research itself and the time it takes to conduct the tax research, but we find that billing decisions are strongly influenced by the three non‐time‐related contextual factors that we manipulate. Initial client volume impacts amounts billed for tax research, with lower initial client volume resulting in higher per client fees. Further, we find that initial billing decisions serve as value billing benchmarks for unanticipated subsequent clients who benefit from research conducted for initial clients. As a result, subsequent clients are billed higher fees when they follow a smaller number of initial clients. We also find that client referrals are billed higher fees than nonclient referrals because professionals attempt to avoid making initial clients feel as though they have been treated unfairly relative to subsequent clients who would otherwise be billed lower fees. The results of this study are relevant beyond the traditional confines of accounting research—they are relevant to the millions of tax entities that contract with tax professionals each year.

Despite the importance placed on professional skepticism by the accounting profession and regulators, the failure of auditors to exercise an appropriate level of skepticism continues to be a global issue. We experimentally test a potential barrier to skepticism. We find that outcome knowledge biases supervisors' evaluations of skeptical behavior. Holding a staff member's skeptical judgments and acts constant, superiors on the engagement team evaluate the staff's skeptical behavior based on whether the staff's investigation of an issue ultimately identifies a misstatement. Our evidence suggests that evaluators penalize auditors who employ an appropriate level of skepticism, but do not identify a misstatement. Although consultation with their superiors while exercising skepticism improved staff auditors' performance evaluations, consultation did not effectively mitigate the outcome effect on their evaluations. Last, we observe that auditors in the field anticipate that their superiors will be influenced by outcome knowledge when they evaluate their skeptical behavior. Collectively, our results depict an evaluation system that may inadvertently discourage skepticism among auditors in the field. Data Availability: Contact the authors.