Distilling the reserve for uncertain tax positions: the revealing case of black liquor

Abstract

We examine the extent to which management discretion affects the reserve for unrecognized tax benefits. We analyze the financial statement disclosures of 19 paper companies that received a total of $6.4 billion in refundable excise taxes during 2009. All of these companies included the refunds in financial income, but 14 excluded all or part of the refunds from taxable income. Despite the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the exclusion, we find that only five of the excluding firms accrued a full reserve for an uncertain tax position, three firms accrued a partial reserve, and six firms did not accrue any reserve. This variation suggests managers enjoy wide latitude in applying the more likely than not standard for determining additions to the reserve. Our findings suggest that financial statement users should exercise caution when comparing tax reserves across companies. In addition, we find some evidence that income-increasing tax accrual decisions are related to characteristics generally associated with weak corporate governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Taxpayers often face ambiguity in applying the tax law even when engaging in routine transactions. For example, Congress permits an income tax credit for qualified research and development expenditures. Yet the precise definition of which expenditures qualify has been a matter of extensive litigation (for example, see Union Carbide Corp. v. Comm. (2nd CIR, 2012) 110 AFTR 2d 2012-5837 affm TC Memo 2009-050). Additionally, prior to the July 2006 temporary regulations governing intercompany service transactions, there were no prescribed methods to determine arm’s length transfer prices for services. Thus multinational entities faced tax law ambiguity when pricing routine intercompany service transactions.

  2. 2.

    We do not take any position on the proper income tax treatment of the credit refunds. Rather, we argue that there is an absence of legal authority for excluding the refunds. Also, note that the amount of the excise tax refund is not uncertain because all firms in our sample received IRS approval to quality for the credits.

  3. 3.

    IRC Section 61 states that taxpayers must include “income from all sources derived” in taxable income. Treasury Regulation Section 1.61-1(a) emphasizes that this presumption applies to all forms of income “unless excluded by law.”

  4. 4.

    FIN 48 permits management to consider a wide range of possible factors when assessing the probability that a position will be sustained, including tax opinions from outside advisors and widely understood administrative practices (ASC topic 740-10-25-7b).

  5. 5.

    We identify 21 firms by searching the Edgar database for “alternative fuel mixture credit” and “black liquor,” and by examining public filings for firms in pulp paper SIC and NAICS industry codes. We exclude Appleton, an S corporation not subject to taxation, and Sappi, which reports using IFRS, thereby making it impossible to ascertain the tax status of the refunds. For Rock-Tenn and Buckeye Technology, two companies with fiscal years not ending on December 31, we estimate financial information over the 12 months ending on December 31, 2009, using quarterly and annual reports.

  6. 6.

    Excluding the credits from taxable income would result in a permanent book-tax difference reducing the effective tax rate. Under Regulation S-X Rule 4-08(h)(2), reconciling items must be itemized if the item is “significant in appraising the trend of earnings” or if it exceeds 5 % of the amount computed by multiplying the income before tax by the applicable statutory federal income tax rate. Only Newpage Holding disclosed that it currently intends to include credits in gross income (Newpage 2009 10K filing, p. 81).

  7. 7.

    For example, Packaging Corporation discloses in its effective tax rate reconciliation that $62 million of tax benefits were due to excluding credit refunds. However, the 2009 UTB addition was only $0.6 million, and this amount is comparable to the 2008 UTB addition of $1.4 million. Therefore we conclude that Packaging Corporation did not record any UTB addition for the credit refund in 2009.

  8. 8.

    We define free cash flows as cash flow from operations less capital expenditures.

  9. 9.

     We thank Ryan Wilson for helpful comments resulting from discussions with a tax department employee at one of the sample firms.

References

  1. Armstrong, C. S., Blouin, J. L., & Larcker, D. F. (2012). The incentives for tax planning. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53, 391–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bergstresser, D., & Philippon, T. (2006). CEO incentives and earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics, 80, 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brickley, J., & Zimmerman, J. (2010). Corporate governance myths: Comments on Armstrong, Guay, and Weber. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cazier, R., Rego, S., Tian, X., & Wilson, R. (2010). Early evidence on the determinants of unrecognized tax benefits. Working paper: University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  5. De Waegenaer, A., R. Sansing, and J.Wielhouwer. 2010. Financial accounting measures of tax reporting aggressiveness. Working paper, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.

  6. Desai, M., Dyck, A., & Zingales, L. (2007). Theft and taxes. Journal of Financial Economics, 84, 591–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dhaliwal, D., Gleason, C., & Mills, L. (2004). Last-chance earnings management: Using the tax expense to meet analysts’ forecasts. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 431–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fields, T. D., Lys, T. Z., & Vincent, L. (2001). Empirical research on accounting choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 255–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) (2006). Financial Interpretation No. 48 (FIN 48), Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, Norwalk, CT.

  10. Frank, M. M., Lynch, L. J., & Rego, S. O. (2009). Tax reporting aggressiveness and its relation to aggressive financial reporting. The Accounting Review, 84, 467–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Frischmann, P., Shevlin, T., & Wilson, R. (2008). Economic consequences of increasing the conformity in accounting for uncertain tax benefits. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46, 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanlon, M., & Heitzman, S. (2010). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 127–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Healy, P., & Palepu, K. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 405–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jensen, M. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48, 831–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin, H., & McNichols, M. (1998). Underwriting relationships, analysts’ earnings forecasts, and investment recommendations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25, 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lisowsky, P., L. Robinson, Schmidt, A. (2012). What Does FIN 48 Tell Us About Tax Shelters? Working paper. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  18. Michaely, R., & Womack, K. (1999). Conflict of interest and the credibility of underwriter analyst recommendations. Review of Financial Studies Special, 12, 653–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Robinson, L., Schmidt A. (2012). An examination of mandatory disclosure quality: Evidence from FIN 48. Working Paper.

  20. Warfield, T. D., Wild, J. J., & Wild, K. L. (1995). Managerial ownership, accounting choices, and informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20(1), 61–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We appreciate comments and helpful suggestions from an anonymous reviewer, Ben Ayers, Devan Mescall (discussant), Lillian Mills, D.J. Nanda, Ed Outslay, Sundaresh Ramnath, Jeri Seidman, Ryan Wilson (discussant), and Peter Wysocki as well as those made by participants in the AAA annual meeting, the ATA midyear meeting, and in accounting colloquiums at Michigan State University, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Miami. We also gratefully acknowledge research support provided by Red McCombs School of Business, the C. Aubrey Smith Professorship, and the Accounting Doctoral Scholars program. Robinson worked on this topic while serving as the academic fellow for the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission, but all information presented here is available from public sources. The Securities and Exchange Commission as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement by any of its employees. Therefore the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the commission or the other members of its staff of the commission.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Robinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Simone, L., Robinson, J.R. & Stomberg, B. Distilling the reserve for uncertain tax positions: the revealing case of black liquor. Rev Account Stud 19, 456–472 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-013-9257-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Uncertain tax positions
  • FIN 48
  • Financial accounting
  • Tax avoidance

JEL Classification

  • H25
  • M41
  • M48