Preliminary. Please do not quote. AbstractHow prevalent is long-run corporate tax avoidance? Surprisingly, there appears to be no published academic work addressing this basic question. We define tax avoidance based on the ability to sustain a cash effective tax rate (the ratio of cash taxes paid to pretax income) below the statutory tax rate. It is important to note that avoiding taxes does not imply that a firm has done anything improper. There are numerous provisions in the tax code that allow or encourage firms to reduce their taxes. We investigate the extent to which firms are able to engage in corporate tax avoidance over periods as long as ten years. We find that 437 firms, comprising 22 percent of our sample, were able to sustain a cash effective tax rate of less than 20 percent over a ten year period. An initial examination of the characteristics of successful long-run tax avoiders shows that they are spread across industries but cluster somewhat in certain industries such as oil and gas extraction, insurance, and real estate. Other characteristics associated with long-run tax avoidance include having large firm size, being incorporated in a tax haven, having high ratios of property, plant and equipment to assets, being intangible intensive, and being highly levered.

No abstract

Abstract:In this paper, we present a review of tax research. We survey four main areas of the literature: 1) the informational role of income tax expense reported for financial accounting, 2) corporate tax avoidance, 3) corporate decision-making including investment, capital structure, and organizational form, and 4) taxes and asset pricing. We summarize the research areas and questions examined to date and what we have learned or not learned from the work completed thus far. In addition, we provide our opinion as to the interesting and important issues for future research. ______________________This paper was prepared for the 2009 Journal of Accounting and Economics Conference. We appreciate comments from Scott Dyreng, Mihir Desai (discussant), S.P. Kothari (editor), John Long, Ed Maydew, Lillian Mills, Tom Omer, Sonja Rego, Doug Shackelford, Terry Shevlin, Joel Slemrod, Cliff Smith, David Weber, Ryan Wilson, Jerry Zimmerman, George Zodrow, and conference participants at the JAE Conference as well as at the 2009 University of North Carolina Tax Symposium and the discussant there, Bill Gentry. All errors and omissions are our own. * Corresponding author: 100 Main Street, Cambridge, MA. email: mhanlon@mit.edu. 1 A Review of Tax Research IntroductionIn this paper, we review tax research in accounting as well as tax research in economics and finance to the extent that it is related to or is affected by research in accounting. Shackelford and Shevlin (2001) provide a careful and thorough review of empirical tax research in accounting in the prior Journal of Accounting and Economics review volume. Shackelford and Shevlin limit their review to research published in accounting outlets and describe the development of the relatively young archival, microeconomic-based income tax literature that arose from the Scholes andWolfson framework. In his discussion of the review, Maydew (2001) emphasizes the need for tax researchers in accounting to think more broadly and to incorporate more theory and evidence from economics and finance. We agree. Tax research has a long history in many disciplines; this fact cannot be ignored. Our goal in this paper is to integrate the theoretical and empirical tax research from accounting, economics, and finance, to summarize what is known and unknown, and to offer suggestions for future research.The multidisciplinary nature of tax research is what makes tax research exciting (yes, exciting), yet difficult. Tax research can be difficult not only because one has to follow tax studies in accounting, finance, economics, and law (through academic institutions, governmental agencies, and policy think tanks), but also because different disciplines often use different languages and have different perspectives. 1 For example, economists generally focus on tax compliance, tax incidence (such as who bears the corporate tax), investment and economic growth effects (such as how taxes 1 Slemrod (1992a) characterizes these differences as economists studying what corporations actually do and accountants stud...

I investigate the role of book-tax differences in indicating the persistence of earnings, accruals, and cash flows for one-period-ahead earnings. I also examine whether the level of book-tax differences influences investors' assessments of future earnings persistence. I find that firm-years with large book-tax differences have earnings that are less persistent than firm-years with small book-tax differences. Further, the evidence is consistent with investors interpreting large positive book-tax differences (book income greater than taxable income) as a “red flag” and reducing their expectation of future earnings persistence for these firm-years. I then investigate potential sources of the lower persistence for firm-years with large book-tax differences. I find that special items contribute in part to the results but that firm-years with large booktax differences continue to have lower persistence in earnings after controlling for the effect of the special items.

No abstract