No abstract

No abstract

Purpose This study aims to analyze the relationship between a company’s use of aggressive tax planning and several audit committee members’ characteristics, namely, independence, expertise, diligence and gender diversity. Design/methodology/approach This paper is an empirical research using archival data from 289 Canadian listed companies for the 2011-2015 period. Findings The authors find that measures of expertise and diligence are significantly related to tax aggressiveness. Financial expertise and tenure on the audit committee play an important role in constraining tax aggressiveness, as does having a larger audit committee. Research limitations/implications One limitation – and an area for future research – is that the effects of the audit committee members’ relationships with managers of the firms were not investigated. Practical implications Knowledge of audit committee characteristics may send a signal to shareholders, investors and tax agencies regarding the company’s potential risk with respect to aggressive tax planning. The analysis provides useful insights for board governance committees when determining the profile of persons to nominate for board positions and committees. In discussing tax-risk management, the study may heighten audit committee members’ awareness of their role in this respect. Originality/value This study’s results indicate that even in a setting where incentives for firms to be tax-aggressive is low compared to high-tax rate countries, there is variability in firms’ tax aggressiveness. This situation allows us to find audit committee characteristics that are effective in decreasing tax aggressiveness.

Section 3450 of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook requires Canadian firms to capitalize development costs that meet certain criteria and to expense those that relate to research. International Accounting Standard (IAS) No. 38 favours a similar approach. In the United States, Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 2 recommends the immediate expensing of all research and development (R&D) spending. The only exception is SFAS No. 86, which requires software development costs to be capitalized when a product successfully passes a technological feasibility test. Consequently, the Canadian financial disclosure regime provides a rich setting for testing the market valuation of capitalized R&D. Our primary research question asks whether capitalized R&D provides useful information to market participants investing in Canadian firms. We use price‐level and return models to assess the value relevance of capitalized R&D disclosed in the financial statements under Canadian GAAP. In line with expectations, using a price‐level model, we find that capitalized R&D and R&D expense as disclosed in the financial statements provide information that is value relevant to market participants. However, we find that R&D capitalized during the year helps explain returns while R&D expense does not. Thus we conclude that the application of section 3450 of the CICA Handbook produces value‐relevant information.

No abstract