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 study provides evidence that binary signals in audit reports are unable to fully communicate underlying risks that are inherently continuous in nature. Specifically, we find that companies whose audit reports signal an improvement in internal control effectiveness relative to the prior year are still more likely to subsequently restate the current year's financial statements than companies with no material weaknesses in either year. Similarly, companies deemed to no longer have substantial doubt of continuing as a going concern are still more likely to declare bankruptcy than companies with no going concern opinion in either year. Results in both settings suggest the presence of residual risk that cannot be communicated through a binary audit report, despite the fact that auditors recognize the risk, as evidenced by higher audit fees and longer audit report lags. Our findings are strongest when the reported improvement is more pronounced, and our results hold in matched samples. Our study provides empirical evidence that supports recent regulatory efforts to improve the content of the audit report and offers suggestions for future research.

This study uses insights from tax practitioners and tax authorities to define and develop an estimate of ex ante tax risk that is independent of common tax outcomes studied in prior literature. Validation tests confirm that our tax risk measure (i) represents the predictable and unpredictable uncertainty inherent in the three sources of tax risk (i.e., economic risk, tax law uncertainty, and inaccurate information processing) and (ii) is a construct different from tax avoidance, tax uncertainty, and general business risk. Using our tax risk measure, we address two research questions of interest to academics and practitioners. First, we examine the association between tax risk and long‐run tax avoidance and find a negative association between tax risk and future long‐run cash effective tax rates (ETRs). Second, we consider the extent to which unrecognized tax benefits (UTBs) reflect tax risk, tax avoidance, or financial reporting incentives and demonstrate that our tax risk measure explains a substantial portion of UTBs, incremental and relative to measures of information risk, conditional conservatism, unconditional conservatism, and tax avoidance. Our study offers a measure of tax risk that, consistent with the Scholes‐Wolfson paradigm, reflects the tax risk inherent in all business activities, not just tax avoidance activities; has unique industry effects; and contributes to our understanding of the factors that affect tax planning decisions and result in variation in firms' ETRs. Our findings will help managers and tax practitioners focus on industry‐specific tax risk components, assess risk during tax planning initiatives, exercise caution when engaging in additional risk if ETRs are low, and adapt tax risk strategies to fit specific company needs. We enhance future tax research by improving the definition and measurement of tax risk.

We investigate whether firms' tax planning affects the accuracy of analysts' forecasts. Tax planning can exacerbate the complexity of firms' operations through strategic choices to exploit tax laws. Because of its effect on firms' operations, tax planning can influence analysts' efforts to understand and forecast earnings. Specifically, if the additional complexity arising from tax planning makes firm attributes less representative of expected earnings, analysts may issue less accurate forecasts. Using auditor‐provided tax services (APTS) as a measure of tax planning, we find that, as firms spend more on tax planning, the accuracy of analysts' forecasts of both earnings per share and tax expense declines. We also document that firms with higher levels of APTS have greater year‐to‐year volatility in, and lower persistence of, effective tax rates and earnings. Our results suggest that increased firm complexity, due to greater tax planning, makes earnings and tax expense more difficult to forecast and that analysts do not properly adjust for these effects. Thus, when deciding to engage in tax planning, firms appear to make trade‐offs between potential tax savings and negative effects on earnings properties and analysts' forecasts.