Author
Listed:
- Can common empirical tests reliably identify tax avoidance? This is an important question because our understanding of the determinants of tax avoidance largely depends on results generated using such tests. We address this question by using a controlled environment to examine the effectiveness of empirical tests that use effective tax rates (ETR) and book-tax differences (BTD) as tax avoidance proxies. We seed Compustat data with three tax avoidance strategies and examine how reliably empirical tests identify this incremental simulated tax avoidance, all else equal. We find that power varies with the proxy and the type of tax avoidance. Thus, we offer guidance to researchers in matching specific types of tax avoidance with the most powerful proxy to detect it. We further offer evidence on how research design choices affect power. Results suggest researchers can increase power by eliminating observations with both negative pre-tax book income and negative tax expense, and by using robust regression to address data outliers. In contrast, power is impaired when truncating ETR proxies and when using Execucomp data. We also provide evidence that tests have less power to detect tax avoidance when multi-year ETR proxies are used.
(Stanford University)
Abstract
y Can common empirical tests reliably identify tax avoidance? This is an important question because our understanding of the determinants of tax avoidance largely depends on results generated using such tests. We address this question by using a controlled environment to examine the effectiveness of empirical tests that use effective tax rates (ETR) and book-tax differences (BTD) as tax avoidance proxies. We seed Compustat data with three tax avoidance strategies and examine how reliably empirical tests identify this incremental simulated tax avoidance, all else equal. We find that power varies with the proxy and the type of tax avoidance. Thus, we offer guidance to researchers in matching specific types of tax avoidance with the most powerful proxy to detect it. We further offer evidence on how research design choices affect power. Results suggest researchers can increase power by eliminating observations with both negative pre-tax book income and negative tax expense, and by using robust regression to address data outliers. In contrast, power is impaired when truncating ETR proxies and when using Execucomp data. We also provide evidence that tests have less power to detect tax avoidance when multi-year ETR proxies are used.
Suggested Citation
Can common empirical tests reliably identify tax avoidance? This is an important question because our understanding of the determinants of tax avoidance largely depends on results generated using such, 2017.
"How Reliably Do Empirical Tests Identify Tax Avoidance?,"
Research Papers
3446, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
Handle:
RePEc:ecl:stabus:3446
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:3446. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.