IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v34y2017i2p818-848.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deciphering Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Credit Rating Disagreements

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel B. Bonsall
  • Kevin Koharki
  • Luke Watson

Abstract

This study investigates the role of tax avoidance in the credit†rating process and whether differences exist in how rating agencies account for the risk relevance of tax avoidance. Using a sample of initial credit ratings assigned to public debt issuances during 1994–2013, our evidence is consistent with Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's assessing the costs and benefits associated with tax avoidance differently from one another, resulting in more frequent and pronounced rating agency disagreement. Rating agency disagreement over tax avoidance is most evident when it is accompanied by relatively high levels of uncertain tax positions, foreign activities, research and development activities, or tax footnote opacity. We also find evidence that decreases (increases) in tax avoidance or tax footnote disclosure opacity are positively (negatively) associated with the convergence of split ratings. This suggests that firms can exacerbate or mitigate rating agency disagreement subsequent to bond issuance. Our study complements prior research by examining why sophisticated information intermediaries disagree about the risk relevance of tax avoidance. It also sheds light on how firms can influence rating agencies’ understanding of tax avoidance.Les auteurs analysent l'incidence de l’évitement fiscal sur le processus de notation et se demandent si la façon de prendre en compte l’évitement fiscal dans l’évaluation du risque varie selon les agences de notation. Les données qu'ils tirent de l'analyse d'un échantillon de cotes de solvabilité initiales attribuées à des émissions publiques d'instruments d'emprunt au cours de la période 1994†2013 confirment que Moody's Investors Service et Standard & Poor's évaluent les coûts et les avantages associés à l’évitement fiscal de manière différente, ce qui donne lieu à des divergences plus fréquentes et plus marquées dans les cotes des agences de notation. Les divergences des agences de notation en ce qui a trait à l’évitement fiscal sont plus évidentes lorsqu'elles sont conjuguées à des niveaux relativement élevés d'incertitude quant aux positions fiscales, d'activités à l’étranger et d'activités de recherche et de développement, ou à l'opacité des notes sur les impôts dans les états financiers. Les auteurs constatent également que la diminution (l'augmentation) de l’évitement fiscal ou de l'opacité des notes sur les impôts dans les états financiers est en relation positive (négative) avec la convergence des différentes notes attribuées, ce qui semble indiquer que les sociétés peuvent accentuer ou atténuer les divergences des agences de notation à la suite de l’émission d'instruments d'emprunt. L’étude vient compléter les recherches précédentes grâce à l'analyse des raisons pour lesquelles des agents chevronnés de transmission de l'information ne s'entendent pas quant à l'incidence de l’évitement fiscal sur l’évaluation du risque. Elle jette également un nouvel éclairage sur la manière dont les sociétés peuvent influencer la compréhension de l’évitement fiscal qu'ont les agences de notation.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel B. Bonsall & Kevin Koharki & Luke Watson, 2017. "Deciphering Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Credit Rating Disagreements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 818-848, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:34:y:2017:i:2:p:818-848
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12287
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12287?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kevin Holland & Sarah Lindop & Nor Shaipah Abdul Wahab, 2022. "How Do Managers and Shareholders Respond to Taxation? An Analysis of the Introduction of the UK Real Estate Investment Trust Legislation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 58(2), pages 334-364, June.
    2. Hossain, Ashrafee & Hossain, Takdir & Jha, Anand & Mougoué, Mbodja, 2023. "Credit ratings and social capital," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Tao Chen & Sidney Leung & Lingmin Xie, 2021. "Does credit rating conservatism matter for corporate tax avoidance?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5681-5730, December.
    4. Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He & To, Thomas Y., 2021. "Are credit rating disagreements priced in the M&A market?," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    5. Edgley, Carla & Holland, Kevin, 2021. "“Unknown unknowns” and the tax knowledge gap: Power and the materiality of discretionary tax disclosures," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. John Donovan & Jared Jennings & Kevin Koharki & Joshua Lee, 2021. "Measuring credit risk using qualitative disclosure," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 815-863, June.
    7. Song, Qian & Holland, Kevin, 2023. "The quality of tax accounting for financial reporting purposes: International evidence from the United Kingdom," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Dhawan, Anirudh & Ma, Liangbo & Kim, Maria H., 2020. "Effect of corporate tax avoidance activities on firm bankruptcy risk," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:coacre:v:34:y:2017:i:2:p:818-848. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.