As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the US Congress repealed a long‐standing exception that allowed companies to deduct executives' qualified performance‐based compensation in excess of $1 million.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.

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.

We use data envelopment analysis (DEA) to develop a measure of effective tax planning that is theoretically aligned with the Scholes-Wolfson paradigm and captures how efficiently firms maximize after-tax returns given their operating, investing, and financing decisions. We then (1) document that the measure is associated with higher after-tax returns to provide assurance DEA achieves its objective in our setting, (2) demonstrate that the measure is incremental to cash ETRs in predicting after-tax returns, (3) validate the measure by showing its association with lower tax and non-tax costs, and (4) provide evidence that the measure captures something about taxes distinct from overall firm performance. This measure is useful to researchers given the known limitations of ETRs as a measure of tax planning. Data Availability: Tax Effectiveness values are available on the authors' websites.