Internal and external parties meaningfully shape corporate tax outcomes. However, we lack a holistic understanding of the major parties involved and their comparative effects. Using proprietary IRS data for public and private firms, we identify the top executives, corporate accountants, external accounting firms, and individual tax preparers and examine the comparative importance of these parties on corporate tax outcomes. We find that external individual tax preparers matter much more than the accounting firms that employ them. Internal actors (top accountants and executives) explain more of the variation in corporate tax outcomes than external actors (individual tax preparers and accounting firms). We also find some evidence that individuals’ characteristics are associated with the tax behavior of the corporations they serve. Overall, we conclude that some of the actors who are unobservable in public data play a greater role in corporate tax outcomes than parties that are a focus of prior research.

Tax audits are a necessary component of the tax system, but policymakers and others have expressed concerns about their potentially adverse real effects. Understanding the causal effects of tax audits has been hampered by lack of data and because typically tax audits are not randomly assigned. We use administrative data from random tax audits of small businesses to examine the real effects of being subject to a tax audit. We find that audited firms are more likely to go out of business following the audit. The effect is concentrated in firms that underreport their taxes, although we find some evidence that the administrative costs of an audit also negatively affect firm survival. Among firms that continue as going concerns, we find evidence that audits have adverse effects on future revenues but no effect on future wages, employment, or investment. Finally, we find that tax audits have side benefits, causing firms to make changes to improve their tax efficiency.

Drawing on confidential Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, we examine whether privately held corporations are more aggressive tax planners than their publicly held peers. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find no consistent evidence that private firms are more aggressive tax planners. We then examine whether private firms’ tax planning differs from that of public firms more generally. We find that private firms engage in more conforming tax planning (planning that also reduces pretax accounting income). However, tests of nonconforming tax planning reveal that private firms generally engage in the same or less planning relative to their public peers. Overall, our findings cast doubt on the belief that private firms are generally more aggressive tax planners than are public firms, but confirm that they engage in more of some forms of general (i.e., conforming) planning. Data Availability: The IRS provided confidential tax information to Michele S. Mullaney pursuant to an Intragovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (IPA) agreement through the Statistics of Income (SOI) Joint Statistical Research Program (JSRP).

To what extent do U.S. consumers change their purchase behavior or, in the extreme, boycott companies based on negative information about corporate tax activities? Practitioner publications and academic research identify consumers as a key corporate tax stakeholder. But we have limited empirical evidence whether information about corporate tax activities influences consumer actions. We undertake a comprehensive study of this question, triangulating across several settings. First, a representative sample of consumers suggests they rarely boycott in response to corporate tax activities. Next, an analysis of granular retail scanner data fails to provide compelling evidence of consumer purchase responses to negative tax news. An analysis of individual foot traffic at retail establishments around negative tax news again fails to suggest U.S. consumers change their shopping activities in response to negative tax news. The combined evidence suggests consumers do not meaningfully alter their purchase behavior in response to negative tax news.