Abstract
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate whether the market prices discretionary and non-discretionary tax accruals. Previous studies have examined the persistence of total accruals (Sloan in Account Rev 71(3):289–315, 1996) and the persistence of discretionary and non-discretionary components of total accruals (Xie in Account Rev 76(3):357–373, 2001). These studies do not investigate the tax components of accruals. We argue that tax accruals are mispriced more than book accruals because of the complexity of tax accruals in assessing future earnings. We use a sample of 6,397 firms and the Mishkin model to investigate whether the market overvalues tax accruals more than book accruals. Descriptive statistics show that firms are increasingly using more income decreasing tax accruals than income-increasing book accruals contributing to the growing divergence between tax and book earnings. Results from the Mishkin test show that the overpricing of tax accruals is more severe than that for book accruals. Finally, hedge portfolio tests show that investors can earn excess returns using a hedging strategy based on tax accruals. Interestingly, excess returns based on a hedging strategy using book accruals almost disappear.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Book accruals have relatively low tax conformity. They affect reported earnings but do not affect the firm’s taxable income. Tax accruals have higher tax conformity because the tax code allows similar or equal treatment when computing the firm’s taxable income. Thus, tax accruals affect both taxable income and reported earnings (Calegari 2000).
These rules generally became effective for transactions on or after January 1, 2003. Under the regulations, six classes of reportable transactions have been created: (1) confidential transactions, (2) transactions with contractual protection, (3) loss transactions, (4) transactions with significant tax differences, (5) transactions involving a brief asset holding period and (6) IRS listed transactions.
Prior studies suggest that capital market participants are unable to fully capture accounting numbers that result from complex tax rules. Nor does the market anticipate and correctly interpret income effects of tax-motivated income shifting. Shaw (1990) reports that the lack of complete disclosure of earning components impairs the analysts’ and investors’ ability to predict the earnings effects of some transactions related to taxes. Chen and Schoderbek (2000) and Chen et al. (2003) examine how investors and analysts assess the income effects of the deferred tax adjustment caused by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. They find evidence indicating that investors and analysts are fixated on reported accounting numbers and interpret accounting information without regard to the rules used to produce it. These authors suggest that the complexity of deferred tax adjustments and disclosures may have contributed to the failure of investors and analysts to properly interpret the reported earnings. Shane and Stock (2006) report that market prices and analysts’ earnings per share forecasts fail to reflect unbiased expectations regarding firms’ incentives to shift income from high to low tax rate years. In general, these studies suggest that market prices do not fully reflect the future earnings implications of current earnings components.
I.R.C. 446(a) states: "Taxable income shall be computed under the method of accounting on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes his income in keeping his books". I.R.C. 461(a) provides: "The amount of any deduction or credit allowed by this subtitle shall be taken for the taxable year which is the proper taxable year under the method of accounting used in computing taxable income" (US Tax Code On-Line, http://uscode.house.gov/title_26.htm).
The Schedule M-1 of Form 1120-US Corporation Income Tax Return requires a reconciliation of income (loss) per books with income per tax return.
On the other hand, because tax savings are generally maximized by deferring revenues and by accelerating expenses, tax conformity may also impose significant non-tax costs on the firms. Tax conformity may depict the firm to external parties (i.e., actual and potential investors, lenders, suppliers, etc.) as relatively worse off than it would be portrayed without conformity, may increase the probability of violating some debt covenants, and it may also reduce managers’ compensation tied to book income (Cloyd et al. 1996).
Hanlon (2005) uses deferred tax asset and liability accounts to classify firms into one of two groups: positive tax differences or negative tax differences. It is important to note that deferred tax accounts represent only a subset of total accruals.
Graham et al. (2008) report that book-tax differences arise because of tax planning, general business conditions, earnings management, changes in financial accounting rules, changes in sales, and the level of property, plant, and equipment.
All variables used in this study are defined in Table 1.
This item represents current assets that are not included in cash, cash equivalents, receivables or inventory on the balance sheet. It also includes prepaid expenses (e.g., prepaid insurance, advertising, and rent) that cause temporary differences between taxable income and book income (Dyckman et al. 1998).
Nguyen et al. (2009) and Vassalou (2003) augment the CAPM and the Fama–French model (1993) with a GDP factor. Nguyen et al. (2009) found that the information about future GDP growth is not priced in equity returns in the Australian market. On the other hand, Vassalou (2003) using US data reported that premium related to the GDP growth is positive and significant.
Beaver et al. (2007) find that tests of market efficiency are sensitive to the exclusion or inclusion of delisting returns. Shumway (1997) and Shumway and Walther (1999) recommend that firms with missing delisting returns should be corrected for the delisting bias. A limitation of our study is that the sample was identified using Compustat database which has a survivorship bias. As a result, it is quite possible that delisted firms were dropped in the initial sample selection process.
Compared to previous related studies our median earnings scaled by total assets at the beginning of the period are similar. Our sample period runs over 1986–2001. Sloan (1996) reported scaled median earnings of 0.011 over the sample period of 1994–2000, Xie (2001) reported median scaled earnings of 0.048 over the sample period of 1971–1992, and Hanlon (2005) reports median earnings of 0.113 using the sample period of 1994–2000.
Palmon et al. (2008) use a trading strategy based on the interaction of company size and accruals using raw security returns.
Xie (2001) reports size-adjusted return of 11 percent for discretionary book accruals in year t + 1. The differences in returns between Xie and our study may be partly due to sample time periods used in two studies. Xie’s sample covers 1971–1992 periods whereas our sample is from 1986–2001 periods.
Regression using Eq. 10a is also estimated. Untabulated results show that the sign of the coefficients for tax and book accrual coefficients are positively and negatively significant, respectively.
The following steps are used in running Eq. 11: decile ranking for each firm-year is first obtained, followed by constructing ten portfolios for each year, and then computing equally weighted monthly average portfolio returns for 10 portfolios for year t + 1, finally, the risk free rate is subtracted from the portfolio returns in order to obtain excess portfolio returns. We are thankful to the reviewer for suggesting Eq. 11 and for the calculation of excess portfolio returns.
References
Banz R (1981) The relationship between return and market value of common stocks. J Financ Econ 9:3–18
Barber B, Lehavy R, MicNichols M, Trueman B (2001) Can investors profit from the prophets? Security analyst recommendations and stock return. J Financ 56:531–563
Bartov E, Myungim K (2004) Risk, mispricing, and value investing. Rev Quant Financ Account 23(4):353–376
Bartov E, Gul F, Tsui J (2000) Discretionary-accruals models and audit qualifications. J Account Econ 30(3):421–451
Basu S (1977) Investment performance of common stocks in relation to their price-earnings ratios: a test of the efficient market hypothesis. J Financ 32(3):663–681
Basu S (1983) The relationship between earnings yield market value and return for NYSE common stocks: further evidence. J Financ Econ 12(1):129–156
Beaver W, McNichols M, Price R (2007) Delisting returns and their effect on accounting-based market anomalies. J Account Econ 43(2):341–368. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2006.12.002
Becker C, DeFond M, Jiambalvo J, Subramanyam K (1998) The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contempor Account Res 15(1):1–24
Black F (1972) Capital market equilibrium with restricted borrowing. J Bus 45(3):444–455
Calegari M (2000) The effect of tax accounting rules on capital structure and discretionary accruals. J Account Econ 30(1):1–31
Canellos P, Kleinbard ED (2002) Disclosing tax differences. Tax notes August 12. www.taxanalysts.com
Carhart M (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J Financ 52(1):57–82
Chan L, Hamao Y, Lakonishok J (1991) Fundamentals and stock returns in Japan. J Financ 46(5):1739–1764
Chaney PK, Jeter DC (1994) The effect of deferred taxes on security prices. J Account Audit Financ 9(1):91–116
Chen K, Schoderbek M (2000) The 1993 tax tate increase and deferred tax adjustments: a test of functional fixation. J Account Res 38(1):23–44
Chen K, Danielson M, Schoderbek M (2003) Analysts’ interpretation of transitory earnings components: evidence from forecast revisions after disclosure of the 1993 deferred tax adjustment. J Account Audit Financ 18(3):333–353
Cloyd CB (1995) The effects of financial accounting conformity on recommendations of tax preparers. J Am Tax Assoc 17(2):50–70
Cloyd CB, Pratt J, Stock T (1996) The use of financial accounting choice to support aggressive tax positions: public and private firms. J Account Res 34(1):23–43
Collins D, Hribar P (2000) Earnings-based and accrual-based market anomalies: one effect or two? J Account Econ 29(1):101–123
Dechow P (1994) Accounting earnings and cash flows as a measure of firm performance: the tole of accounting accruals. J Account Econ 18(1):3–42
Dechow P, Sloan R, Sweeney AP (1995) Detecting earnings management. Account Rev 70(2):193–225
DeFond M, Jiambalvo J (1994) Debt covenant violation and manipulation of accruals. J Account Econ 17:145–176
DeFond M, Park C (2001) The reversal of abnormal accruals and the market valuation of earnings surprises. Account Rev 76(3):375–404
Department of the US Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (2003) Tax shelter regulations, April. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/td9046.pdf
Department of the US Treasury, Office of Tax Policy (1999) The problem of corporate tax shelters: discussion, analysis and legislative proposals. White paper, July
Desai M (2003) The divergence between book income and tax income. Tax Policy Econ 17(1):169–206
Dopuch N, Seethamraju C, Weihong X (2010) The pricing of accruals for profit and loss firms. Rev Quant Financ Account 34:505–516. doi:10.1007/s11156-009-0144-9
Dyckman TR, Dukes RE, Davis CJ (1998) Intermediate accounting, 4th edn. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York
Fairfield P, Whisenant S, Yohn L (2003) Accrued earnings and growth: implications for future profitability and market mispricing. Account Rev 78(1):353–371
Fama E, French K (1992) The cross-section of expected stock returns. J Financ 47(2):427–465
Fama E, French K (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J Financ Econ 33(1):3–56
Fama E, French K (1996) Multifactor explanations of asset pricing anomalies. J Financ 51(1):55–84
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) (2000) Original pronouncements: accounting standards as of June 1, 2000. Volumes I, II & III
Francis J, LaFond R, Olsson PM, Schipper K (2004) Costs of equity and earnings attributes. Account Rev 79(4):967–1010
Graham J, Raedy J, Shackelford D (2008) Research in accounting for income taxes. Working paper, Duke University and University of North Carolina
Guenther D (1994) Earnings management in response to corporate tax rate changes: evidence from the 1986 tax reform. Account Rev 69(1):230–243
Guenther D, Maydew EL (1997) Financial reporting, tax costs, and book-tax conformity. J Account Econ 23(3):225–248
Hanlon M (2005) The persistence and pricing of earnings, accruals and cash flows when firms have large tax differences. Account Rev 80(1):137–166
Hanlon M, Maydew E, Shevlin T (2006) Book-tax conformity and the information content of earnings. Working paper. University of Michigan
Healy P (1985) The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions. J Account Econ 7:85–107
Heninger W (2001) The association between auditor litigation and abnormal accruals. Account Rev 76(1):111–126
Heyns P, Hamman W, Smit E (1999) Do share prices fully reflect the information about future earnings in accruals and cash flow? South Africa J Bus Manag 30(4):122–130
Jegadeesh N (2000) Long-term performance of seasonal equity offerings: benchmark errors and biases in expectations. Financ Manag 29(3):5–30
Jones J (1991) Earnings management during import relief investigations. J Account Res 29:193–228
Kao L (2007) Does investor’s sophistication affect persistence and pricing of discretionary accruals? Rev Pac Basin Financ Mark Policies 10(1):35–50
Keating A, Zimmerman J (2000) Depreciation-policy changes: tax, earnings management, and investment opportunity incentives. J Account Econ 28(3):359–389
Klein A (2002) Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. J Account Econ 33(3):375–400
L’Her J-F, Masmoudi T, Suret J-M (2004) Evidence to support the four-factor pricing model from the Canadian stock market. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 14(4):313–328. doi:10.1016/j.intfin.2003.09.001
Lam K, Li F, So S (2010) On the validity of the augmented Fama and French’s (1993) model: evidence from the Hong Kong stock market. Rev Quant Financ Account 35(1):89–111. doi:10.1007/s11156-009-0151-x
Lev B, Nissim D (2004) Taxable income, future earnings and equity values. Account Rev 79(4):1039–1074
Lintner J (1965) The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Rev Econ Stat 10:115–132
Manzon G Jr (1992) Earnings management of firms subject to the alternative minimum tax. J Am Tax Assoc 14(2):88–111
Mills L (1998) Tax differences and internal revenue service adjustments. J Account Res 36(2):343–356
Mills L, Newberry K (2001) The influence of tax and nontax costs on tax reporting differences: public and private firms. J Am Tax Assoc 23(1):1–19
Mills L, Newberry K, Trautman WB (2002) Trends in tax income and balance sheet differences. Working paper (June)
Mishkin F (1983) A rational expectations approach to macro econometrics: testing policy ineffectiveness and efficient-markets models. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Myers J, Myers L, Omer T (2003) Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: a case for mandatory auditor rotation? Account Rev 78(3):779–799
Nguyen A, Faff R, Gharghori P (2009) Are the Fama–French factors proxying news related to GDP growth? The Australian evidence. Rev Quant Financ Account 33(2):141–158. doi:10.1007/s11156-009-0137-8
Northcut D, Vines C (1998) Earnings management in response to political scrutiny of effective tax rates. J Am Tax Assoc 20(2):22–36
Palmon D, Sudit E, Yezegel A (2008) The accruals anomaly and company size. Financ Anal J 64(5):47–60
Plesko G (2003) An evaluation of alternative measures of corporate tax rates. J Account Econ 35(2):201–226. doi:10.1016/S0165-4101(03)00019-3
Plesko G (2007) Estimates of the magnitude of financial and tax reporting conflicts. Working paper, University of Connecticut (May)
Rajgopal S, Shevlin T, Venkatachalam M (2003) Does the stock market fully appreciate the implications of leading indicators for future earnings? Evidence from order backlog. Rev Account Stud 8(4):461–492
Rees L, Gill S, Gore R (1996) An investigation of asset writedowns and concurrent abnormal accruals. J Account Res (Suppl) 34(3):157–169
Rogers W (1993) Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bull 13:19–23
Rosenberg B, Reid K, Lanstein R (1985) Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency. J Portfol Manag 11(3):9–17
Shane P, Stock T (2006) Security analyst and stock market efficiency in anticipating tax-motivated income shifting. Account Rev 81(1):227–250
Sharpe W (1964) Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Financ 19(3):425–442
Shaw W (1990) The effect of a tax law change on analyst forecasts and earnings interpretations. J Account Public Policy 9(3):161–178
Shumway T (1997) The delisting bias in CRSP data. J Financ 52(1):327–340
Shumway T, Walther V (1999) The delisting bias in CRSP’s Nasdaq data and its implications for the size effect. J Financ 54(6):2361–2379
Sloan R (1996) Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? Account Rev 71(3):289–315
Subramanyam KR (1996) The pricing of discretionary accruals. J Account Econ 22(1–3):249–281
Vassalou M (2003) News related to future GDP growth as a risk factor in equity returns. J Financ Econ 68(1):47–73. doi:10.1016/S0304-405X(02)00248-9
Warfield TD, Wild JJ, Wild KL (1995) Managerial ownership, accounting choices, and informativeness of earnings. J Account Econ 20(1):61–91
Xie H (2001) The mispricing of abnormal accruals. Account Rev 76(3):357–373
Zach T (2003) Inside the accrual anomaly. Working paper. Olin School of Business Washington University in St. Louis
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Báez-Díaz, A., Alam, P. Tax conformity of earnings and the pricing of accruals. Rev Quant Finan Acc 40, 509–538 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-012-0275-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-012-0275-2