corporate tax research paper

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

• 15 Dec 2020
• Working Paper Summaries

Designing, Not Checking, for Policy Robustness: An Example with Optimal Taxation

The approach used by most economists to check academic research results is flawed for policymaking and evaluation. The authors propose an alternative method for designing economic policy analyses that might be applied to a wide range of economic policies.

• 31 Aug 2020
• Research & Ideas

State and Local Governments Peer Into the Pandemic Abyss

State and local governments that rely heavily on sales tax revenue face an increasing financial burden absent federal aid, says Daniel Green. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 12 May 2020

Elusive Safety: The New Geography of Capital Flows and Risk

Examining motives and incentives behind the growing international flows of US-denominated securities, this study finds that dollar-denominated capital flows are increasingly intermediated by tax haven financial centers and nonbank financial institutions.

• 01 Apr 2019
• What Do You Think?

Does Our Bias Against Federal Deficits Need Rethinking?

SUMMING UP. Readers lined up to comment on James Heskett's question on whether federal deficit spending as supported by Modern Monetary Theory is good or evil. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 20 Mar 2019

In the Shadows? Informal Enterprise in Non-Democracies

With the informal economy representing a third of the GDP in an average Middle East and North African country, why do chronically indebted regimes tolerate such a large and untaxed shadow economy? Among this study’s findings, higher rates of public sector employment correlate with greater permissibility of firm informality.

• 30 Jan 2019

Understanding Different Approaches to Benefit-Based Taxation

Benefit-based taxation—where taxes align with benefits from state activities—enjoys popular support and an illustrious history, but scholars are confused over how it should work, and confusion breeds neglect. To clear up this confusion and demonstrate its appeal, we provide novel graphical explanations of the main approaches to it and show its general applicability.

• 02 Jul 2018

Corporate Tax Cuts Don't Increase Middle Class Incomes

New research by Ethan Rouen and colleagues suggests that corporate tax cuts contribute to income inequality. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 13 May 2018

Corporate Tax Cuts Increase Income Inequality

This paper examines corporate tax reform by estimating the causal effect of state corporate tax cuts on top income inequality. Results suggest that, while corporate tax cuts increase investment, the gains from this investment are concentrated on top earners, who may also exploit additional strategies to increase the share of total income that accrues to the top 1 percent.

• 08 Feb 2018

What’s Missing From the Debate About Trump’s Tax Plan

At the end of the day, tax policy is more about values than dollars. And it's still not too late to have a real discussion over the Trump tax plan, says Matthew Weinzierl. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 24 Oct 2017

Tax Reform is on the Front Burner Again. Here’s Why You Should Care

As debate begins around the Republican tax reform proposal, Mihir Desai and Matt Weinzierl discuss the first significant tax legislation in 30 years. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 08 Aug 2017

The Role of Taxes in the Disconnect Between Corporate Performance and Economic Growth

This paper offers evidence of potential issues with the current United States system of taxation on foreign corporate profits. A reduction in the US tax rate and the move to a territorial tax system from a worldwide system could better align economic growth with growth in corporate profits by encouraging firms to invest domestically and repatriate foreign earnings.

• 07 Nov 2016

Corporate Tax Strategies Mirror Personal Returns of Top Execs

Top executives who are inclined to reduce personal taxes might also benefit shareholders in their companies, concludes research by Gerardo Pérez Cavazos and Andreya M. Silva. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 18 Apr 2016

Popular Acceptance of Morally Arbitrary Luck and Widespread Support for Classical Benefit-Based Taxation

This paper presents survey evidence that the normative views of most Americans appear to include ambivalence toward the egalitarianism that has been so influential in contemporary political philosophy and implicitly adopted by modern optimal tax theory. Insofar as this finding is valid, optimal tax theorists ought to consider capturing this ambivalence in their work, as well.

• 20 Nov 2015

Impact Evaluation Methods in Public Economics: A Brief Introduction to Randomized Evaluations and Comparison with Other Methods

Dina Pomeranz examines the use by public agencies of rigorous impact evaluations to test the effectiveness of citizen efforts.

• 07 May 2014

How Should Wealth Be Redistributed?

SUMMING UP James Heskett's readers weigh in on Thomas Piketty and how wealth disparity is burdening society. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 08 Sep 2009

The Height Tax, and Other New Ways to Think about Taxation

The notion of levying higher taxes on tall people—an idea offered largely tongue in cheek—presents an ideal way to highlight the shortcomings of current tax policy and how to make it better. Harvard Business School professor Matthew C. Weinzierl looks at modern trends in taxation. Key concepts include: Studies show that each inch of height is associated with about a 2 percent higher wage among white males in the United States. If we as a society are uncomfortable taxing height, maybe we should reconsider our comfort level for taxing ability (as currently happens with the progressive income tax). For Weinzierl, the key to explaining the apparent disconnect between theory and intuition starts with the particular goal for tax policy assumed in the standard framework. That goal is to minimize the total sacrifice borne by those who pay taxes. Behind the scenes, important trends are evolving in tax policy. Value-added taxes, for example, are generally seen as efficient by tax economists, but such taxes can bear heavily on the poor if not balanced with other changes to the system. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 02 Mar 2007

What Is the Government’s Role in US Health Care?

Healthcare will grab ever more headlines in the U.S. in the coming months, says Jim Heskett. Any service that is on track to consume 40 percent of the gross national product of the world's largest economy by the year 2050 will be hard to ignore. But are we addressing healthcare cost issues with the creativity they deserve? What do you think? Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

Corporate tax risk: a literature review and future research directions

• Published: 02 December 2021
• Volume 73 , pages 527–577, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Arfah Habib Saragih   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4190-3196 1 , 2 &
• Syaiful Ali   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0563-4980 1  

2627 Accesses

9 Citations

Explore all metrics

Our study aims to analyze the current state of, and avenues for, future studies into the tax risk literature. The construct of the corporate tax risk (tax uncertainty) has increasingly begun to attract significant interest from both academics and practitioners. Most previous studies discussing corporate tax behavior have also focused on tax planning, tax avoidance, and tax evasion. Studies investigating the tax risk are still very limited and it is an underexplored subject. Examining the tax risk is crucial because it relates to the tax outcomes arising from a firm’s taxation activities. Furthermore, analyzing the tax risk simultaneously with other tax behavior constructs may provide a deeper understanding. Despite the importance of the tax risk construct, there is no published literature review regarding the tax risk. Using a systematic review process, this study selected 37 articles published in 21 highly reputable journals listed in the Scopus database. The findings of this study are provided in two sections: (1) A discussion of the current studies of tax risk, including the theories, methods, and measurements of tax risk, its determinants and consequences; and (2) Recommendations for future research agendas. From the review, we find that tax risk research still tends to be limited and understudied; many relevant research gaps can be identified. Finally, we suggest several research directions into 12 themes: corporate governance, executive personal characteristics, executive compensation plans, ownership structure, firm-level characteristics, the external market, institutional factor, accounting and auditing, operating environment, regulators and regulation, reputational costs, and others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Implementation: A Review and a Research Agenda Towards an Integrative Framework

Tahniyath Fatima & Said Elbanna

Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review

Hans B. Christensen, Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz

Meta-analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): a literature review

Patrick Velte

Data Availability

All articles included in this review are accessible through the Scopus database.

Abernathy JL, Finley AR, Rapley ET, Stekelberg J (2021) External auditor responses to tax risk. J Accounting, Audit Financ 36:489–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X19867821

Article   Google Scholar  

Alsadoun N, Naiker V, Navissi F, Sharma DS (2018) Auditor-provided tax nonaudit services and the implied cost of equity capital. Audit A J Pract Theory 37:1–24. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51866

Arlinghaus BP (1998) Goal setting and performance measures. Tax Exec 50:434–441

Google Scholar  

Armstrong CS, Blouin JL, Jagolinzer AD, Larcker DF (2015) Corporate governance, incentives, and tax avoidance. J Account Econ 60:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.02.003

Atwood TJ, Lewellen C (2019) The Complementarity between tax avoidance and manager diversion: evidence from tax haven firms. Contemp Account Res 36:259–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12421

Atwood TJ, Drake MS, Myers JN, Myers LA (2012) Home country tax system characteristics and corporate tax avoidance: International evidence. Account Rev 87:1831–1860. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50222

Austin CR, Wilson RJ (2017) An examination of reputational costs and tax avoidance: evidence from firms with valuable consumer brands. J Am Tax Assoc 39:67–93. https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-51634

Beasley MS, Goldman NC, Lewellen CM, McAllister M (2021) Board risk oversight and corporate tax-planning practices. J Manag Account Res 33:7–32. https://doi.org/10.2308/JMAR-19-056

Beck PJ, Lisowsky P (2014) Tax uncertainty and voluntary real-time tax audits. Account Rev 89:867–901. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50677

Beer S, de Mooij RA, Liu Li (2019) International corporate tax avoidance: a review of the channels, magnitudes, and blind spots. J Econ Surv. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12305

Blouin J (2014) Defining and measuring tax planning aggressiveness. Natl Tax J 67:875–899. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2014.4.06

Borthick AF, Smeal LN (2020) Data analytics in tax research: analyzing worker agreements and compensation data to distinguish between independent contractors and employees using irs factors. Issues Account Educ 35:1–23. https://doi.org/10.2308/issues-18-061

Brown JL, Drake KD, Martin MA (2016) Compensation in the post-FIN 48 period: the case of contracting on tax performance and uncertainty. Contemp Account Res 33:121–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12152

Campbell JL, Cecchini M, Cianci AM (2019) Tax-related mandatory risk factor disclosures, future profitability, and stock returns. Rev Account Stud 24:264–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-018-9474-y

Campbell JL, Goldman NC, Li B (2021) Do financing constraints lead to incremental tax planning? evidence from the pension protection act of 2006. Contemp Account Res 38:1961–1999. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12679

Casino F, Dasaklis TK, Patsakis C (2019) A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: current status, classification and open issues. Telemat Informatics 36:55–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006

Chang H, Dai X, He Y, Wang M (2020) How internal control protects shareholders’ welfare: evidence from tax avoidance in China. J Int Account Res 19:19–39. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-19-046

Chen W (2020) Tax risks control and sustainable development: evidence from China. Meditari Account Res. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2020-0884

Chen W (2021) Too far east is west: tax risk, tax reform and investment timing. Int J Manag Financ 17:303–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-03-2020-0132

Chen S, Chen X, Cheng Q, Shevlin T (2010) Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? J Financ Econ 95:41–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.02.003

Chen H, Yang D, Zhang X, Zhou N (2020) The moderating role of internal control in tax avoidance: evidence from a COSO-Based internal control index in China. J Am Tax Assoc 42:23–55. https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-52408

Chen JZ, Hong HA, Kim J-B, Ryou JW (2021a) Information processing costs and corporate tax avoidance: evidence from the SEC’s XBRL mandate. J Account Public Policy 40:49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106822

Chen TY, Chen Z, Li Y (2021b) Restrictions on managerial outside job opportunities and corporate tax policy: evidence from a natural experiment. J Account Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106879

Chen X, Cheng Q, Chow T, Liu Y (2021c) Corporate in-house tax departments. Contemp Account Res 38:443–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12637

Chyz JA, Gaertner FB (2018) Can paying “too much” or “too little” tax contribute to forced CEO turnover? Account Rev 93:103–130. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51767

Clark WR, Clark LA, Raffo DM, Williams RI (2021) Extending Fisch and Block’s (2018) tips for a systematic review in management and business literature. Manag Rev Q 71:215–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00184-8

Cooper M, Nguyen QTK (2020) Multinational enterprises and corporate tax planning: a review of literature and suggestions for a future research agenda. Int Bus Rev 29:101692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101692

De Simone L, Nickerson J, Seidman J, Stomberg B (2020) How reliably do empirical tests identify tax avoidance? Contemp Account Res 37:1536–1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12573

Demeré P, Donohoe MP, Lisowsky P (2020) The economic effects of special purpose entities on corporate tax avoidance. Contemp Account Res 37:1562–1597. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12580

Dhawan A, Ma L, Kim MH (2020) Effect of corporate tax avoidance activities on firm bankruptcy risk. J Contemp Account Econ 16:100187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2020.100187

Donelson DC, Glenn JL, Yust CG (2021) Is tax aggressiveness associated with tax litigation risk? evidence from D&O insurance. Rev Account Stud. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09612-w

Downes JF, Kang T, Kim S, Lee C (2019) Does the mandatory adoption of IFRS improve the association between accruals and cash flows? Evidence from accounting estimates. Account Horizons 33:39–59. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52262

Drake KD, Lusch SJ, Stekelberg J (2017) Does tax risk affect investor valuation of tax avoidance? J Accounting, Audit Financ 34:151–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X17692674

Dwivedi A, Dwivedi P, Bobek S, Sternad Zabukovšek S (2019) Factors affecting students’ engagement with online content in blended learning. Kybernetes 48:1500–1515. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-10-2018-0559

Dyreng SD, Hanlon M, Maydew EL (2010) The effects of executives on corporate tax avoidance. Account Rev 85:1163–1189. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1163

Dyreng SD, Hanlon M, Maydew EL (2019) When does tax avoidance result in tax uncertainty? Account Rev 94:179–203. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52198

Faúndez-Ugalde A, Mellado-Silva R, Aldunate-Lizana E (2020) Use of artificial intelligence by tax administrations: an analysis regarding taxpayers’ rights in Latin American countries. Comput Law Secur Rev 38:105441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105441

Federico C, Thompson T (2019) Do IRS computers dream about tax cheats? artificial intelligence and big data in tax enforcement and compliance. J Tax Pract Proced 21:35–39

Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68:103–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Frank MM, Lynch LJ, Rego SO (2009) Tax reporting aggressiveness and its relation to aggressive financial reporting. Account Rev 84:467–496. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.2.467

Ftouhi K, Ghardallou W (2020) International tax planning techniques: a review of the literature. J Appl Account Res 21:329–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-05-2019-0080

Gallemore J, Labro E (2015) The importance of the internal information environment for tax avoidance. J Account Econ 60:149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.005

Gallemore J, Maydew EL, Thornock JR (2014) The reputational costs of tax avoidance. Contemp Account Res 31:1103–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12055

Görlitz A, Dobler M (2021) Financial accounting for deferred taxes: a systematic review of empirical evidence. Manag Rev Q. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00233-w

Guenther DA, Matsunaga SR, Williams BM (2017) Is tax avoidance related to firm risk? Account Rev 92:115–136. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51408

Guenther DA, Wilson RJ, Wu K (2019) Tax uncertainty and incremental tax avoidance. Account Rev 94:229–247. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52194

Guggenmos RD, Van der Stede WA (2020) The effects of creative culture on real earnings management. Contemp Account Res 37:2319–2356. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12586

Hamann PM (2017) Towards a contingency theory of corporate planning: a systematic literature review. Manag Rev Q 67:227–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0132-4

Hamilton R, Stekelberg J (2017) The effect of high-quality information technology on corporate tax avoidance and tax risk. J Inf Syst 31:83–106. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51482

Hanlon M, Heitzman S (2010) A review of tax research. J Account Econ 50:127–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.002

Hanlon M, Maydew EL, Saavedra D (2017) The taxman cometh: does tax uncertainty affect corporate cash holdings? Rev Account Stud 22:1198–1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-017-9398-y

Hardeck I, Harden JW, Upton DR (2019) Consumer reactions to tax avoidance: evidence from the United States and Germany. J Bus Ethics 170:75–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04292-8

He G, Ren HM, Taffler R (2019) The impact of corporate tax avoidance on analyst coverage and forecasts. Rev Quant Financ Account 54:447–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-019-00795-7

Herron R, Nahata R (2020) Corporate tax avoidance and firm value discount. Q J Financ. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010139220500081

Higgins D, Omer TC, Phillips JD (2015) The influence of a firm’s business strategy on its tax aggressiveness. Contemp Account Res 32:674–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12087

Hoopes JL, Mescall D, Pittman JA (2012) Do IRS audits deter corporate tax avoidance? Account Rev 87:1603–1639. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50187

Inger KK, Vansant B (2019) Market valuation consequences of avoiding taxes while also being socially responsible. J Manag Account Res 31:75–94. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-52169

Jackson M (2015) Book-tax differences and future earnings changes. J Am Tax Assoc 37:49–73. https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-51164

Jacob M, Schütt HH (2020) Firm valuation and the uncertainty of future tax avoidance. Eur Account Rev 29:409–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2019.1642775

Joshi P, Outslay E, Persson A et al (2020) Does public country-by-country reporting deter tax avoidance and income shifting? evidence from the European banking industry. Contemp Account Res 37:2357–2397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12601

Kanagaretnam K, Lee J, Lim CY, Lobo GJ (2016) Relation between auditor quality and tax aggressiveness: implications of cross-country institutional differences. Audit A J Pract Theory 35:105–135. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51417

Karjalainen J, Kasanen E, Kinnunen J, Niskanen J (2020) Dividends and tax avoidance as drivers of earnings management: evidence from dividend-paying private SMEs in Finland. J Small Bus Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1824526

Keding C (2021) Understanding the interplay of artificial intelligence and strategic management: four decades of research in review. Manag Rev Q 71:91–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00181-x

Khan M, Srinivasan S, Tan L (2017) Institutional ownership and corporate tax avoidance: new evidence. Account Rev 92:101–122. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51529

Khurana IK, Moser WJ (2013) Institutional shareholders’ investment horizons and tax avoidance. J Am Tax Assoc 35:111–134. https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-50315

Kim J, McGuire ST, Savoy S et al (2019) How quickly do firms adjust to optimal levels of tax avoidance? Contemp Account Res 36:1824–1860. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12481

Koester A, Shevlin T, Wangerin D (2016) The role of managerial ability in corporate tax avoidance. Manage Sci 63:3285–3310. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2510

Kovermann JH (2018) Tax avoidance, tax risk and the cost of debt in a bank-dominated economy. Manag Audit J 33:683–699. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-12-2017-1734

Kovermann J, Velte P (2019) The impact of corporate governance on corporate tax avoidance—A literature review. J Int Accounting, Audit Tax 36:100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2019.100270

Kubick TR, Lockhart GB (2016) Do external labor market incentives motivate CEOs to adopt more aggressive corporate tax reporting preferences? J Corp Financ 36:255–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.12.003

Kubick TR, Masli ANS (2016) Firm-level tournament incentives and corporate tax aggressiveness. J Account Public Policy 35:66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2015.08.002

Law KKF, Mills LF (2017) Military experience and corporate tax avoidance. Rev Account Stud 22:141–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-016-9373-z

Lennox C, Lisowsky P, Pittman J (2013) Tax aggressiveness and accounting fraud. J Account Res 51:739–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/joar.12002

Lin X, Liu M, So S, Yuen D (2019) Corporate social responsibility, firm performance and tax risk. Manag Audit J 34:1101–1130. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2018-1868

Moore RD (2021) The concave association between tax reserves and equity value. J Am Tax Assoc 43:107–124. https://doi.org/10.2308/JATA-17-109

Neubig T, Sangha B (2004) Tax risk and strong corporate governance. Tax Exec 56:114–119

Neuman SS, Omer TC, Schmidt AP (2020) Assessing tax risk: practitioner perspectives. Contemp Account Res 37:1788–1827. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12556

Nguyen JH (2020) Tax avoidance and financial statement readability. Eur Account Rev 30:1043–1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2020.1811745

Nobes C (2020) On theoretical engorgement and the myth of fair value accounting in China. Accounting, Audit Account J 33:59–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2018-3743

Olsen KJ, Stekelberg J (2016) CEO narcissism and corporate tax sheltering. J Am Tax Assoc 38:1–22. https://doi.org/10.2308/atax-51251

Overesch M, Wolff H (2021) Financial transparency to the rescue: effects of public country-by-country reporting in the European Union banking sector on tax avoidance. Contemp Account Res 38:1616–1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12669

Plečnik JM, Wang S (2021) Top management team intrapersonal functional diversity and tax avoidance. J Manag Account Res 33:103–128. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-19-058

Powers K, Robinson JR, Stomberg B (2016) How do CEO incentives affect corporate tax planning and financial reporting of income taxes? Rev Account Stud 21:672–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-016-9350-6

Rasel MA, Win S (2020) Microfinance governance: a systematic review and future research directions. J Econ Stud 47:1811–1847. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-03-2019-0109

Rego SO, Wilson R (2012) Equity risk incentives and corporate tax aggressiveness. J Account Res 50:775–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00438.x

Saavedra D (2019) Is tax volatility priced by lenders in the syndicated loan market? Eur Account Rev 28:767–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2018.1520641

Schweikl S, Obermaier R (2020) Lessons from three decades of IT productivity research: towards a better understanding of IT-induced productivity effects. Manag Rev Q 70:461–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00173-6

Taylor G, Richardson G (2013) The determinants of thinly capitalized tax avoidance structures: evidence from Australian firms. J Int Accounting, Audit Tax 22:12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2013.02.005

Taylor G, Richardson G (2014) Incentives for corporate tax planning and reporting: empirical evidence from Australia. J Contemp Account Econ 10:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2013.11.003

Taylor G, Richardson G, Al-Hadi A (2018) Income-shifting arrangements, audit specialization and uncertain tax benefits, international tax risk, and audit specialization: evidence from US multinational firms. Int J Audit 22:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12117

Towery EM (2017) Unintended consequences of linking tax return disclosures to financial reporting for income taxes: Evidence from schedule UTP. Account Rev 92:201–226. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51660

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Wang F, Xu S, Sun J, Cullinan CP (2020) Corporate tax avoidance: a literature review and research agenda. J Econ Surv 34:793–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12347

Watrin C, Burggraef S, Weiss F (2019) Auditor-provided tax services and accounting for tax uncertainty. Int J Account. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1094406019500112

Wilde JH, Wilson RJ (2018) Perspectives on corporate tax planning: observations from the past decade. J Am Tax Assoc 40:63–81. https://doi.org/10.2308/ATAX-51993

Wunder HF (2009) Tax risk management and the multinational enterprise. J Int Accounting, Audit Tax 18:14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2008.12.003

Ying T, Wright B, Huang W (2017) Ownership structure and tax aggressiveness of Chinese listed companies. Int J Account Inf Manag 25:313–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-07-2016-0070

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful and valuable comments and recommendations. The authors would like to thank the Department of Accounting Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada and the Department of Fiscal Administration Faculty of Administrative Sciences Universitas Indonesia for supporting this study.

There is no funding for the research project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sosio Humaniora 1, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Arfah Habib Saragih & Syaiful Ali

Department of Fiscal Administration, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Jl. Prof. Dr. Selo Soemardjan, Pondok Cina, Kecamatan Beji, Kota Depok, 16424, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

Arfah Habib Saragih

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arfah Habib Saragih .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

We reported no potential conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

We declared that the principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Saragih, A.H., Ali, S. Corporate tax risk: a literature review and future research directions. Manag Rev Q 73 , 527–577 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00251-8

Download citation

Received : 15 September 2021

Accepted : 19 November 2021

Published : 02 December 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00251-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Corporate tax risk
• Tax uncertainty
• Tax volatility
• Literature review

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Reporter

A Summary of Recent Corporate Tax Research

Taxes are thought to influence corporate decisions in many ways. For that reason, in the past decade a number of changes (or proposed changes) to the U.S. tax code have been made in an attempt to affect corporate behavior. For example, U.S. and European authorities have raised the possibility of eliminating or reducing the ability of companies to deduct interest payments from taxable income, because the tax-favored status of debt has reduced tax revenue collection and allegedly encouraged a "debt bias" of corporations. It is believed that by using too much debt financing, firms may have exacerbated economic downturns. Also, during the last two recessions, in an attempt to stimulate the corporate sector, the U.S. government has temporarily granted companies the ability to carry current-year losses back five years, in order to receive a refund on taxes paid during the past five years. Further, equity tax rates have been decreased for retail investors in an attempt to reduce the corporate cost of capital, and these changes are thought to have increased dividend payout. And, there have been proposals to disallow multinational companies from avoiding income taxes on profits earned overseas by their reinvesting those profits overseas. In this report, I summarize academic research on these and related issues.

In 1958 Modigliani and Miller (M&M) laid the groundwork for modern corporate finance research by demonstrating that when capital and informational markets are perfect, firm value is not affected by financial decisions. Five years later they showed that the existence of taxation can create an environment in which financial decisions affect firm value. In particular, M&M demonstrated that when corporate income is taxed and debt interest is a deductible expense, firm value can be increased by using debt financing rather than funding entirely from equity.

Several branches of research emanated from these basic insights. The first addresses whether the tax environment leads to firm-specific optimal capital structures and value enhancement. If there are costs to using too much debt (for example, expected financial distress costs or personal taxes on interest income), then firms with the greatest benefit to shielding taxes (for example, firms facing higher income tax rates) should be the ones with the greatest incentives to use debt financing. Much of my tax research focuses on how to measure these tax incentives in the context of a dynamic tax code.

One important feature of the tax code is that a firm can "carry back" current losses (by refiling past tax returns) to receive a tax refund for taxes paid in recent years. Alternatively, if carrying back losses is not attractive, then firms can carry forward losses to offset taxable income in future years. Therefore, because the dynamic tax code allows firms to move income through time, it is necessary to forecast future taxable income to estimate current-period tax rates and tax incentives.

Capital Structure Choices and Simulating Corporate Marginal Income Tax Rates

In my early work, I simulated dynamic corporate marginal income tax rates that could explain the probability that a firm will be nontaxable and that allow it to carry losses forward and backward. I then used these simulated tax rates to document that firms respond to tax incentives when they make incremental financing choices, 1 and when they choose the level of debt and the level of leasing. 2 These corporate tax incentives hold up even in the presence of high personal tax rates on interest income. 3

Most tax and capital structure research, including the work just mentioned, uses data drawn from financial statements, not data from actual tax returns. Given that financial statements consolidate worldwide income statements and balance sheets for multinational firms, but that tax rules and tax incentives vary by country, one might wonder how closely financial-statement-based research mirrors tax return data. 4 In recent work, Lillian Mills and I access confidential tax returns to explore how closely tax rates estimated from financial statement data parallel those based on tax return data. 5 Fortunately, we find that simulated tax rates based on financial statement data are very highly correlated with tax variables based on tax return data.

Capital Structure - Debt Bias

Documenting that tax rates are correlated with corporate capital structure choices suggests that firms may increase value by choosing debt optimally. However, some argue that an increased use of debt in response to tax incentives leads to negative outcomes. After all, the extent to which firms are able to increase value occurs directly because deducting interest expenses deprives the government of tax revenues. More than just reducing tax revenues, a "debt bias" -- using extra debt in response to tax incentives -- could result in too much debt in the system, increasing the probability that firms will become financially distressed, and thereby exacerbating or perhaps even causing economic downturns. Critics of debt bias argue that the ability to deduct interest should be eliminated or at least reduced. For this argument to have its greatest force, it should be the case that 1) tax incentives lead to a large increase in the use of debt, and that 2) the "extra" debt that firms use in response to tax incentives should lead to a material increase in the probability of experiencing financial distress.

Regarding whether taxes have a first-order effect on the use of debt, I have documented that a tax rate that is 10 percentage points higher (for example, 34 percent instead of the mean 24 percent) leads to debt usage that is 0.7 percent higher. Thus, while taxes do affect capital structure, the effect is moderate, providing only partial evidence of the first debt bias consideration. Regarding whether the extra debt usage increases the odds of encountering distress, two co-authors and I search for these effects when one might expect the negative effects of excess leverage to be at their worst: during the severe economic contractions during the Great Depression and during the years 2008-9. 6 In the first stage of our analysis, we show that firms did in fact use more debt because of tax incentives during the Depression. However, we do not find any evidence that this extra debt increased the probability of encountering distress. Similarly, we do not find any evidence that debt bias led to negative outcomes during the recent recession. It is important to note that our failure to find negative effects of debt bias could be attributable to noise in the data (especially during the Depression era) and to our focus on nonfinancial firms. Clearly, there needs to be more research on this important issue in general, and with respect to financial firms in particular.

Capital Structure - Tax Benefit Functions

One way to measure how much interest tax savings contribute to firm value involves estimating marginal tax benefit functions -- that is, measuring the marginal tax benefit of each incremental dollar of tax deduction. By adding up the value created by each incremental dollar of interest deduction, one can estimate the contribution to firm value associated with the tax savings that flow from a given level of interest deductions. Two co-authors and I follow this approach and estimate that the equilibrium, gross tax benefit of interest deductions (ignoring all costs) equals about 10.5 percent of value across all firms, and about twice that much for the top decile of companies. 7

Analogous to using supply shifts to identify demand curves, we use exogenous variation in benefit functions to deduce the cost-of-debt function that justifies the capital structure choices that firms make. By summing the area under the cost functions up to a given amount of debt, we estimate that the equilibrium all-in expected cost of debt equals about 7 percent of firm value. By summing up the area between the cost and benefit functions, we estimate that the equilibrium net benefits of debt (net of all costs) are about 3.5 percent of firm value. Again, these numbers are fairly moderate and do not suggest pervasive high leverage caused by severe debt bias.

Tax-Loss Carrybacks and Economic Stimulus

For the most part, U.S. companies in recent decades have been able to carry back current-period losses to receive a refund for taxes paid in the past two years. This feature of the tax code serves as an economic stabilizer by providing an infusion of liquidity to (previously profitable) companies that are currently struggling. During the last two recessions, the carryback period was temporarily lengthened to five years in an attempt to stimulate the corporate sector during an economic downturn.

Hyunseob Kim and I examine the economic impact of the stimulus during the most recent recession. 8 Companies were given the option to carry back losses from either their 2008 tax year or their 2009 tax year to receive a refund for taxes paid during the previous five years. Had the carryback period remained at two years, we estimate the carryback feature of the tax code would have provided $77 billion in tax refunds; allowing losses to be carried back an additional three years added an incremental $54 billion in tax refunds to corporate coffers (this estimate ignores TARP recipients and the tax benefits granted to them). Interestingly, the increased benefit was particularly valuable to sectors that were hugely profitable during the economic boom of the mid-2000s but then suffered the greatest losses during the recession: housing, finance, and autos. That is, the U.S. government supported firms in these industries via changes to the tax code.

Payout Policy

One feature of the famous 2003 "Bush tax cuts" was to reduce the maximum tax rate on both qualifying dividends and capital gains to 15 percent, from 38 percent and 20 percent, respectively. This relative reduction in dividend taxation thus made dividends more attractive to taxable individual investors. 9 Given this increased investor preference for dividends, one might expect companies to begin to pay out a larger proportion of profits via dividends. Research shows that there was a surge of dividend initiations following the May 2003 implementation of these tax breaks and that dividend hikes were largest at the companies that had the greatest net tax incentive to increase dividends, such as firms with proportionally more individual investors (which makes sense given that the tax cut was focused on individuals). Chetty and Saez show that the dividend increases were less likely to occur in firms for which the executives owned substantial stock options (which makes sense because options are not dividend protected, meaning that paying a dividend reduces the value of existing options). 10

Thus, investor-level taxes affect corporate payout choices. However, are taxes the dominant force driving payout policy? Based on surveys and one-on-one interviews, three co-authors and I document that CFOs agree with the general conclusion that firms increased dividends in response to the reduction in retail investor dividend tax rates -- but we conclude that the 2003 tax effect on corporate payout decisions was overall moderate. 11 Executives indicate that non-tax conditions (such as generating long-run, sustainable earnings or facing lower growth prospects) are the first-order factors that determine payout policy and also determine whether a particular firm is at a margin where taxes would affect its payout decisions. In summary, most CFOs say that tax considerations matter but taxes are not the dominant factor in their decisions about whether to increase dividends or choose dividends over share repurchases.

Taxes on Foreign Profits

Economics and politics have merged into a contentious debate related to the extent to which U.S. firms should pay U.S. taxes on profits earned by their foreign divisions and subsidiaries. Under current law, taxes are paid to foreign authorities as the profits are earned - but taxes are not paid to the U.S. tax authority until the profits are returned home ("repatriated") to the domestic parent. By surveying tax executives, two-coauthors and I learn that the ability to defer paying U.S. taxes is in fact one of the most important reasons that U.S. companies invest overseas. 12 Opponents of these tax rules argue that evidence like this is proof that U.S. firms shift jobs overseas to the detriment of domestic employment. (Supporters of the repatriation tax rules argue that they help U.S. firms compete overseas.)

If foreign profits are repatriated home, they are then taxed at a rate essentially equal to the degree to which the U.S. tax rate exceeds the tax rate in the foreign jurisdiction in which they were earned (for example, profits earned and taxed at an Irish corporate tax rate of 13 percent would be taxed an additional 22 percent when returned to the United States because the U.S. corporate income tax rate is 35 percent). In 2004, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act, which allowed firms to repatriate profits to the United States subject to a tax rate of no more than 5.25 percent and often much lower. Our research documents that many firms embraced this tax break and bought profits home to the United States. Perhaps surprisingly, we also show that some firms did not repatriate earnings, even at low repatriation tax rates, and even though repatriation would have a positive effect on actual cash flows, because it would lead to a reduction in reported earnings. That is, even at low tax rates repatriation is at times avoided by firms because it reduces earnings per share, which financial executives believe in turn hurts stock price. Interestingly, Senator Kay Hagen recently proposed instituting another "one time" reduction in taxes owed on repatriated profits. Justification for such a proposal is unclear given that, overall, academic research into the 2004 reduction in repatriation taxes does not provide clear evidence that on net firms used the funds brought home to increase investment or hiring.

In summary, the tax code is constantly under revision, in part in an attempt by authorities to alter corporate behavior. Recent research documents that tax incentives do affect corporate behavior, but often the effects are often modest. I look forward to future research that helps explain why tax effects are not always as large as we might expect, whether the reason be measurement issues, offsetting nontax influences, or unanticipated changes in corporate behavior that occur as the economy re-equilibrates.

1.   J. R. Graham, "Debt and the Marginal Tax Rate,"  Journal of Financial Economics , 41, 1996, pp. 41-74. 2.   J. R. Graham, M. Lemmon, and J. Schallheim, "Debt, Leases, Taxes, and the Endogeneity of Corporate Tax Status,"  Journal of Finance , 53, 1998, pp. 131-62. 3.   J. R. Graham, "Do Personal Taxes Affect Corporate Financing Decisions?"  Journal of Public Economics , 73, 1999, pp. 147-85. 4.   For details, see J. R. Graham, J. Raedy, and D. Shackleford, "Accounting for Income Taxes," NBER Working Paper No.  15665 , January 2010, and  Journal of Accounting and Economics  forthcoming 5.   J. R. Graham and L. Mills, "Using Tax Return Data to Simulate Corporate Marginal Tax Rates", NBER Working Paper No.  13709 , December 2007, and  Journal of Accounting and Economics , 446:2-3, 2008, pp.366-88. 6.   J.R. Graham, S. Hazarika, and K. Narasimhan, "Financial Distress during the Great Depression", NBER Working Paper No.  17388 , August 2011, and  Financial Management  forthcoming. 7.   J. van Binsbergen, J. R. Graham, and J. Yang, "The Cost of Debt", NBER Working Paper No.  16023 , May 2010, and  Journal of Finance  65:6, 2010, pp.2089-136. 8.   J.R. Graham, and H. Kim, "The Effects of the Length of the Tax-Loss Carry back Period on Tax Receipts and Corporate Marginal Tax Rates", NBER Working Paper No.  15177 , July 2009, and  National Tax Journal , 62, 2009, pp.413 - 27. 9.   Alok Kumar and I find that individual investors form clienteles based on tax preferences of holding dividends and that individual investors shift holdings to tax-deferred accounts in response to higher income tax rates. See J.R. Graham and A. Kumar, "Do Dividend Clienteles Exist? Evidence on Dividend Preferences of Retail Investors",  Journal of Finance  61, 2006, pp. 1305-336. 10.   R. Chetty and E. Saez, "Dividend Taxes and Corproate Behavior: Evidence from the 2003 Dividend Tax Cut", NBER Working Paper No.  10841 , October 2004; J. Poterba, "Taxation and Corporate Payout Policy", NBER Working Paper No.  10321 , February 2004; J. Bouin, J. Raedy, and D. Shackelford, "Did Dividends Increase Immediately After the 2003 Reduction in Tax Rates?" NBER Working Paper No.  10301 , February 2004. 11.   A. Brav, J. R. Graham, C. R. Harvey and R. Michaely, "Payout Policy in the 21st Century," NBER Working Paper No.  9657 , April 2003, and  Journal of Financial Economics , 77:3, 2005, pp. 483-527. 12.   J.R. Graham, M. Hanlon, and T. Shevlin, "Real Effects of Accounting Rules: Evidence from Multinational Firms Investment Location and Profit Repatriation Decisions",  Journal of Accounting Research , 49, 2011, pp.137-85.

Researchers

More from nber.

NBER periodicals and newsletters may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

© 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research. Periodical content may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution.