Skip to main content
Log in

Performance Evaluation and Corporate Income Taxes in a Sequential Delegation Setting

  • Published:
Review of Accounting Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider a setting where a firm delegates an investment decision and, subsequently, a sales decision to a privately informed manager. For both decisions corporate income taxes have real effects. We show that compensating the manager based on pre-tax residual income can ensure after-tax NPV-maximization (“goal congruence”) for each decision problem in isolation. However, this metric fails if both decisions are nontrivial, since it requires asset-specific hurdle rates and hence precludes asset aggregation. After-tax residual income metrics (e.g., EVA) allow the firm to consistently apply its after-tax cost of capital as the hurdle rate to its aggregate asset base. We show that existing tax depreciation schedules may explain why firms in practice use more accelerated depreciation schedules than those suggested by previous studies. Our findings also rationalize the widespread use of “dirty surplus” accounting for windfall gains and losses for managerial retention purposes.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amir, E., M. Kirschenheiter and K. Willard. (2001). “The Aggregation and Valuation of Deferred Taxes.” Review of Accounting Studies 6, 275-297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antle, R. and G. Eppen. (1985). “Credit Rationing and Organizational Slack in Capital Budgeting.” Management Science 31, 163-174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldenius, T. (2003). “Delegated Investment Decisions and Private Benefits of Control.” The Accounting Review. Forthcoming.

  • Baldenius, T. and S. Reichelstein. (2000). “Incentive s for Efficient Inventory Management: The Role of Historical Cost.” Working Paper, Columbia University.

  • Bareket, M. (2002). “Investment Decisions Under Capital Constraints: The Role of Revenue Recognition in Performance Measurement.” Working Paper, Duke University.

  • DeAngelo, H. and R. Masulis. (1980). “Optimal Capital Structure Under Corporate and Personal Taxation.” Journal of Financial Economics 8, 3-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal, D., J. Sneed and R. Trezevant. (2000). “Benefits and Costs of Using After-Tax Earnings as the Contracting Variable in Bonus Plans.” Working Paper, University of Arizona.

  • Dutta, S. and S. Reichelstein. (1999). “Asset Valuation and Performance Measurement in Dynamic Agency Settings.” Review of Accounting Studies 4, 235-258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S. and S. Reichelstein. (2002). “Controlling Investment Decisions: Depreciation and Capital Charges.” Review of Accounting Studies 7, 253-281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S. and X.-J. Zhang. (2002). “Revenue Recognition in a Multiperiod Agency Setting.” Journal of Accounting Research 40, 67-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltham, G. and J. Ohlson. (1995). “Valuation and Clean Surplus Accounting for Operating and Financial Activities.” Contemporary Accounting Research 11, 689-732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. (2002). “Discussio n of: ‘Controlling Investment Decisions: Depreciation and Capital Charges’.” Review of Accounting Studies 7, 283-287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guenther, D. and R. Sansing. (2000). “Valuation of the Firm in the Presence of Temporary Book-Tax Differences: The Role of Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities.” The Accounting Review 75, 1-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspeslagh, P., T. Noda and F. Boulos. (2001). “Management for Value: It's Not Just About the Numbers.” Harvard Business Review 79:7, 64-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, R. (2001). “Contracting Theory and Accounting.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 32, 3- 87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm, R. (2001). “Discussio n of: ‘The Aggregation and Valuation of Deferred Taxes’.” Review of Accounting Studies 6, 299-304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, H. (1989). “Selection of Short-Term Accounting-Based Bonus Plans.” The Accounting Review 64, 758-772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson, J. (1999). “On Transitory Earnings.” Review of Accounting Studies 4, 145-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poterba, J. and L. Summers. (1995). “A CEO Survey of U.S.Companies' Time Horizons and Hurdle Rates.” Sloan Management Review 37, 43-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preinreich, G. (1937). “Valuatio n and Amortization.” The Accounting Review 12, 209-226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichelstein, S. (1997). “Investment Decisions and Managerial Performance Evaluation.” Review of Accounting Studies 2, 157-180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, W. (1997). “Inter-Temporal Cost Allocation and Managerial Investment Incentives.” Journal of Political Economy 105, 770-795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholes, M., M. Wolfson, M. Erickson, E. Maydew and T. Shevlin (2002). Taxes and Business Strategy. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomons, D. (1965). Divisional Performance Measurement and Control. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, D. (2000). “Inter-Departmental Cost Allocation and Investment Incentives.” Working Paper, INSEAD.

  • Young, D. and S. O'Byrne. (2001). EVA and Value-Based Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baldenius, T., Ziv, A. Performance Evaluation and Corporate Income Taxes in a Sequential Delegation Setting. Review of Accounting Studies 8, 283–309 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024473630832

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024473630832

Navigation