This study examines whether the volatility of interim estimates of the annual effective tax rate (ETR) provides ex ante information about the quality of firms' internal control environments. Recent research suggests that some firms selectively disclose internal control weaknesses (ICWs). Given the negative consequences associated with ICWs, it is important for capital market participants to be able to identify firms with ineffective internal controls in a timely manner. We find that firms with more volatile annual ETR estimates are more likely to report both tax‐ and nontax‐related ICWs in the current year. Our results also indicate that the volatility of annual ETR estimates declines following the remediation of tax‐related ICWs, but not following the remediation of nontax‐related ICWs. In addition, we find that ETR volatility in the current year is associated with the likelihood that a firm will report an ICW in the following year. Finally, we provide evidence that the volatility of annual ETR estimates is associated with the likelihood that a firm has an undisclosed ICW. In combination, our results suggest that the volatility of interim estimates of the annual ETR provides an ex ante signal of the likelihood that a firm's internal controls are ineffective.

This paper examines whether credit analysts utilize the information contained in the difference between book and taxable income in analyzing a firm’s credit risk. Increased book–tax differences may be informative for credit rating agencies as they may signal decreased earnings quality or changes in the firm’s off–balance sheet financing. Results suggest a significant negative association between positive changes in book–tax differences and ratings changes. This evidence is consistent with large positive changes in book–tax differences signaling decreased earnings quality and/or increased off–balance sheet financing. We also find that large negative changes in book–tax differences result in less favorable rating changes, consistent with these changes signaling decreased earnings quality. In additional analyses, we find that the association between changes in book–tax differences and rating changes is attenuated for high–tax‐planning firms (e.g., where book–tax differences more likely reflect tax planning than decreased earnings quality).

Les auteurs se demandent si les analystes de crédit utilisent l’information que livrent les écarts entre résultat comptable et résultat fiscal dans l’analyse du risque de crédit que présentent les entreprises. L’augmentation de l’écart entre résultat comptable et résultat fiscal peut être révélatrice pour les agences d’évaluation du crédit, car elle peut signaler une détérioration de la qualité des résultats ou des modifications dans le financement hors bilan de l’entreprise. Les résultats de l’étude semblent indiquer l’existence d’un lien négatif significatif entre les changements positifs dans les écarts entre résultat comptable et résultat fiscal et la variation des notations. Cette observation confirme l’hypothèse selon laquelle les changements positifs importants dans les écarts entre résultat comptable et résultat fiscal signalent une détérioration de la qualité des résultats et (ou) une augmentation du financement hors bilan. Les auteurs constatent également que les changements négatifs importants dans les écarts entre résultat comptable et résultat fiscal donnent lieu à des variations des notations moins favorables, ce qui corroborerait la thèse selon laquelle ces changements signalent une détérioration de la qualité des résultats. En procédant à des analyses complémentaires, les auteurs observent que le lien entre les changements dans les écarts entre résultat comptable et résultat fiscal et la variation des notations est moins marqué dans le cas des entreprises qui se livrent activement à la planification fiscale (les écarts entre résultat comptable et résultat fiscal étant, par exemple, plus susceptibles d’indiquer des activités de planification fiscale qu’une détérioration de la qualité des résultats).

This study examines the impact of religion on financial reporting. We predict that firms in religious areas are less likely to engage in financial reporting irregularities because prior research links religiosity to reduced acceptance of unethical business practices. Our results suggest that firms headquartered in areas with strong religious social norms generally experience lower incidences of financial reporting irregularities. We also examine whether religiosity influences managers' methods of managing earnings. Although we find a negative association between religiosity and abnormal accruals, we find a positive association between religiosity and two measures of real earnings management, suggesting that managers in religious areas prefer real earnings management over accruals manipulation. We provide evidence that our results are not driven by firms headquartered in rural areas and conclude that religious social norms represent a mechanism for reducing costly agency conflicts, particularly when other external monitoring is low. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

This study investigates how sophisticated market participants use tax‐based information by examining whether analysts' street effective tax rates (ETRs) are informative. When assessing firm performance, analysts exclude items they believe do not reflect current performance, resulting in “street” metrics such as street ETR. However, evidence on the properties of the components of street earnings is limited. Examining the informativeness of street ETRs is important because taxes are a significant component of earnings, and the extent to which analysts understand taxes and incorporate them into their analyses is not clear. Using a hand‐collected sample of analyst reports, we find that while approximately 35% of street ETRs have at least one tax‐specific exclusion, over 90% reflect the tax effects of pre‐tax exclusions. Further, both tax‐specific exclusions and the tax effects of pre‐tax exclusions significantly contribute to differences between GAAP and street ETRs. Consistent with analysts' understanding of the implications of tax and nontax exclusions, our results suggest that street tax metrics exhibit greater predictive ability about future tax outcomes and provide more information to investors than GAAP tax metrics. We also find that ETR exclusions are of higher quality when the magnitude of the potentially excluded item is greater and when managers disclose pro forma earnings. Collectively, our findings suggest that analysts understand taxes, but selectively exert effort to incorporate tax‐based information into their assessment of firm performance. Our study should be informative to regulators and users of financial information because it provides evidence regarding the usefulness of street earnings metrics.

This study uses valuation allowances (VAs) for deferred tax assets to examine whether hedge fund activists (HFAs) use and affect financial reporting of income taxes. Specifically, we investigate whether HFAs target firms with VAs and whether target firms are more likely to release VAs post‐intervention. We find that the existence, magnitude, and increases in VAs increase the marginal probability that HFAs will target a firm by between 12% and 24%. We also find that target firms are 4.6% more likely to release VAs following the intervention, and this effect persists for up to 2 years. Releases of VAs appear to stem from implemented tax avoidance strategies and changes in financial reporting of income taxes rather than real changes in operating performance or earnings management. Overall, HFAs appear to understand the interplay between tax planning and financial reporting of income taxes and use both to unlock value in target firms.

This study examines the effect of shareholder scrutiny of corporate tax avoidance behavior and its related financial reporting. Specifically, we explore the factors associated with shareholder tax litigation and its effect on the future tax behavior of the sued firm and its peers. We find that sued firms have lower cash and GAAP effective tax rates (ETRs) and engage in extreme tax avoidance before litigation. After litigation, they decrease tax avoidance activities, relative to matched control firms. Peer firms in the same industry as sued firms similarly reduce their level of tax avoidance and the likelihood of extreme tax avoidance after the litigation, relative to control firms. Additional analyses suggest that sued firms change their tax avoidance behavior, rather than merely their tax financial reporting. Finally, the spillover results are strongest for peer firms with the most tax avoidance (i.e., the lowest cash ETRs) when the sued firm's alleged misconduct is revealed.